llvm-project/llvm/lib/CodeGen/ShrinkWrap.cpp

560 lines
21 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
//===-- ShrinkWrap.cpp - Compute safe point for prolog/epilog insertion ---===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This pass looks for safe point where the prologue and epilogue can be
// inserted.
// The safe point for the prologue (resp. epilogue) is called Save
// (resp. Restore).
// A point is safe for prologue (resp. epilogue) if and only if
// it 1) dominates (resp. post-dominates) all the frame related operations and
// between 2) two executions of the Save (resp. Restore) point there is an
// execution of the Restore (resp. Save) point.
//
// For instance, the following points are safe:
// for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
// Save
// ...
// Restore
// }
// Indeed, the execution looks like Save -> Restore -> Save -> Restore ...
// And the following points are not:
// for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
// Save
// ...
// }
// for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
// ...
// Restore
// }
// Indeed, the execution looks like Save -> Save -> ... -> Restore -> Restore.
//
// This pass also ensures that the safe points are 3) cheaper than the regular
// entry and exits blocks.
//
// Property #1 is ensured via the use of MachineDominatorTree and
// MachinePostDominatorTree.
// Property #2 is ensured via property #1 and MachineLoopInfo, i.e., both
// points must be in the same loop.
// Property #3 is ensured via the MachineBlockFrequencyInfo.
//
// If this pass found points matching all these properties, then
2015-12-22 23:06:47 +08:00
// MachineFrameInfo is updated with this information.
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "llvm/ADT/BitVector.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/PostOrderIterator.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/SetVector.h"
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
// To check for profitability.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineBlockFrequencyInfo.h"
// For property #1 for Save.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineDominators.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunctionPass.h"
// To record the result of the analysis.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFrameInfo.h"
// For property #2.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineLoopInfo.h"
// For property #1 for Restore.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachinePostDominators.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/Passes.h"
// To know about callee-saved.
#include "llvm/CodeGen/RegisterClassInfo.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/RegisterScavenging.h"
#include "llvm/MC/MCAsmInfo.h"
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
// To query the target about frame lowering.
#include "llvm/Target/TargetFrameLowering.h"
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// To know about frame setup operation.
#include "llvm/Target/TargetInstrInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetMachine.h"
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// To access TargetInstrInfo.
#include "llvm/Target/TargetSubtargetInfo.h"
#define DEBUG_TYPE "shrink-wrap"
using namespace llvm;
STATISTIC(NumFunc, "Number of functions");
STATISTIC(NumCandidates, "Number of shrink-wrapping candidates");
STATISTIC(NumCandidatesDropped,
"Number of shrink-wrapping candidates dropped because of frequency");
static cl::opt<cl::boolOrDefault>
EnableShrinkWrapOpt("enable-shrink-wrap", cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("enable the shrink-wrapping pass"));
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
namespace {
/// \brief Class to determine where the safe point to insert the
/// prologue and epilogue are.
/// Unlike the paper from Fred C. Chow, PLDI'88, that introduces the
/// shrink-wrapping term for prologue/epilogue placement, this pass
/// does not rely on expensive data-flow analysis. Instead we use the
/// dominance properties and loop information to decide which point
/// are safe for such insertion.
class ShrinkWrap : public MachineFunctionPass {
/// Hold callee-saved information.
RegisterClassInfo RCI;
MachineDominatorTree *MDT;
MachinePostDominatorTree *MPDT;
/// Current safe point found for the prologue.
/// The prologue will be inserted before the first instruction
/// in this basic block.
MachineBasicBlock *Save;
/// Current safe point found for the epilogue.
/// The epilogue will be inserted before the first terminator instruction
/// in this basic block.
MachineBasicBlock *Restore;
/// Hold the information of the basic block frequency.
/// Use to check the profitability of the new points.
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo *MBFI;
/// Hold the loop information. Used to determine if Save and Restore
/// are in the same loop.
MachineLoopInfo *MLI;
/// Frequency of the Entry block.
uint64_t EntryFreq;
/// Current opcode for frame setup.
unsigned FrameSetupOpcode;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// Current opcode for frame destroy.
unsigned FrameDestroyOpcode;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// Entry block.
const MachineBasicBlock *Entry;
typedef SmallSetVector<unsigned, 16> SetOfRegs;
/// Registers that need to be saved for the current function.
mutable SetOfRegs CurrentCSRs;
/// Current MachineFunction.
MachineFunction *MachineFunc;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// \brief Check if \p MI uses or defines a callee-saved register or
/// a frame index. If this is the case, this means \p MI must happen
/// after Save and before Restore.
bool useOrDefCSROrFI(const MachineInstr &MI, RegScavenger *RS) const;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
const SetOfRegs &getCurrentCSRs(RegScavenger *RS) const {
if (CurrentCSRs.empty()) {
BitVector SavedRegs;
const TargetFrameLowering *TFI =
MachineFunc->getSubtarget().getFrameLowering();
TFI->determineCalleeSaves(*MachineFunc, SavedRegs, RS);
for (int Reg = SavedRegs.find_first(); Reg != -1;
Reg = SavedRegs.find_next(Reg))
CurrentCSRs.insert((unsigned)Reg);
}
return CurrentCSRs;
}
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// \brief Update the Save and Restore points such that \p MBB is in
/// the region that is dominated by Save and post-dominated by Restore
/// and Save and Restore still match the safe point definition.
/// Such point may not exist and Save and/or Restore may be null after
/// this call.
void updateSaveRestorePoints(MachineBasicBlock &MBB, RegScavenger *RS);
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// \brief Initialize the pass for \p MF.
void init(MachineFunction &MF) {
RCI.runOnMachineFunction(MF);
MDT = &getAnalysis<MachineDominatorTree>();
MPDT = &getAnalysis<MachinePostDominatorTree>();
Save = nullptr;
Restore = nullptr;
MBFI = &getAnalysis<MachineBlockFrequencyInfo>();
MLI = &getAnalysis<MachineLoopInfo>();
EntryFreq = MBFI->getEntryFreq();
const TargetInstrInfo &TII = *MF.getSubtarget().getInstrInfo();
FrameSetupOpcode = TII.getCallFrameSetupOpcode();
FrameDestroyOpcode = TII.getCallFrameDestroyOpcode();
Entry = &MF.front();
CurrentCSRs.clear();
MachineFunc = &MF;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
++NumFunc;
}
/// Check whether or not Save and Restore points are still interesting for
/// shrink-wrapping.
bool ArePointsInteresting() const { return Save != Entry && Save && Restore; }
/// \brief Check if shrink wrapping is enabled for this target and function.
static bool isShrinkWrapEnabled(const MachineFunction &MF);
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
public:
static char ID;
ShrinkWrap() : MachineFunctionPass(ID) {
initializeShrinkWrapPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
AU.setPreservesAll();
AU.addRequired<MachineBlockFrequencyInfo>();
AU.addRequired<MachineDominatorTree>();
AU.addRequired<MachinePostDominatorTree>();
AU.addRequired<MachineLoopInfo>();
MachineFunctionPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU);
}
StringRef getPassName() const override { return "Shrink Wrapping analysis"; }
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
/// \brief Perform the shrink-wrapping analysis and update
/// the MachineFrameInfo attached to \p MF with the results.
bool runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) override;
};
} // End anonymous namespace.
char ShrinkWrap::ID = 0;
char &llvm::ShrinkWrapID = ShrinkWrap::ID;
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(ShrinkWrap, DEBUG_TYPE, "Shrink Wrap Pass", false, false)
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(MachineBlockFrequencyInfo)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(MachineDominatorTree)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(MachinePostDominatorTree)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(MachineLoopInfo)
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(ShrinkWrap, DEBUG_TYPE, "Shrink Wrap Pass", false, false)
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
bool ShrinkWrap::useOrDefCSROrFI(const MachineInstr &MI,
RegScavenger *RS) const {
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
if (MI.getOpcode() == FrameSetupOpcode ||
MI.getOpcode() == FrameDestroyOpcode) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Frame instruction: " << MI << '\n');
return true;
}
for (const MachineOperand &MO : MI.operands()) {
bool UseOrDefCSR = false;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
if (MO.isReg()) {
unsigned PhysReg = MO.getReg();
if (!PhysReg)
continue;
assert(TargetRegisterInfo::isPhysicalRegister(PhysReg) &&
"Unallocated register?!");
UseOrDefCSR = RCI.getLastCalleeSavedAlias(PhysReg);
} else if (MO.isRegMask()) {
// Check if this regmask clobbers any of the CSRs.
for (unsigned Reg : getCurrentCSRs(RS)) {
if (MO.clobbersPhysReg(Reg)) {
UseOrDefCSR = true;
break;
}
}
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
}
if (UseOrDefCSR || MO.isFI()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Use or define CSR(" << UseOrDefCSR << ") or FI("
<< MO.isFI() << "): " << MI << '\n');
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
/// \brief Helper function to find the immediate (post) dominator.
template <typename ListOfBBs, typename DominanceAnalysis>
static MachineBasicBlock *FindIDom(MachineBasicBlock &Block, ListOfBBs BBs,
DominanceAnalysis &Dom) {
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
MachineBasicBlock *IDom = &Block;
for (MachineBasicBlock *BB : BBs) {
IDom = Dom.findNearestCommonDominator(IDom, BB);
if (!IDom)
break;
}
if (IDom == &Block)
return nullptr;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
return IDom;
}
void ShrinkWrap::updateSaveRestorePoints(MachineBasicBlock &MBB,
RegScavenger *RS) {
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// Get rid of the easy cases first.
if (!Save)
Save = &MBB;
else
Save = MDT->findNearestCommonDominator(Save, &MBB);
if (!Save) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Found a block that is not reachable from Entry\n");
return;
}
if (!Restore)
Restore = &MBB;
else if (MPDT->getNode(&MBB)) // If the block is not in the post dom tree, it
// means the block never returns. If that's the
// case, we don't want to call
// `findNearestCommonDominator`, which will
// return `Restore`.
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
Restore = MPDT->findNearestCommonDominator(Restore, &MBB);
else
Restore = nullptr; // Abort, we can't find a restore point in this case.
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// Make sure we would be able to insert the restore code before the
// terminator.
if (Restore == &MBB) {
for (const MachineInstr &Terminator : MBB.terminators()) {
if (!useOrDefCSROrFI(Terminator, RS))
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
continue;
// One of the terminator needs to happen before the restore point.
if (MBB.succ_empty()) {
Restore = nullptr; // Abort, we can't find a restore point in this case.
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
break;
}
// Look for a restore point that post-dominates all the successors.
// The immediate post-dominator is what we are looking for.
Restore = FindIDom<>(*Restore, Restore->successors(), *MPDT);
break;
}
}
if (!Restore) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Restore point needs to be spanned on several blocks\n");
return;
}
// Make sure Save and Restore are suitable for shrink-wrapping:
// 1. all path from Save needs to lead to Restore before exiting.
// 2. all path to Restore needs to go through Save from Entry.
// We achieve that by making sure that:
// A. Save dominates Restore.
// B. Restore post-dominates Save.
// C. Save and Restore are in the same loop.
bool SaveDominatesRestore = false;
bool RestorePostDominatesSave = false;
while (Save && Restore &&
(!(SaveDominatesRestore = MDT->dominates(Save, Restore)) ||
!(RestorePostDominatesSave = MPDT->dominates(Restore, Save)) ||
// Post-dominance is not enough in loops to ensure that all uses/defs
// are after the prologue and before the epilogue at runtime.
// E.g.,
// while(1) {
// Save
// Restore
// if (...)
// break;
// use/def CSRs
// }
// All the uses/defs of CSRs are dominated by Save and post-dominated
// by Restore. However, the CSRs uses are still reachable after
// Restore and before Save are executed.
//
// For now, just push the restore/save points outside of loops.
// FIXME: Refine the criteria to still find interesting cases
// for loops.
MLI->getLoopFor(Save) || MLI->getLoopFor(Restore))) {
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// Fix (A).
if (!SaveDominatesRestore) {
Save = MDT->findNearestCommonDominator(Save, Restore);
continue;
}
// Fix (B).
if (!RestorePostDominatesSave)
Restore = MPDT->findNearestCommonDominator(Restore, Save);
// Fix (C).
if (Save && Restore &&
(MLI->getLoopFor(Save) || MLI->getLoopFor(Restore))) {
if (MLI->getLoopDepth(Save) > MLI->getLoopDepth(Restore)) {
// Push Save outside of this loop if immediate dominator is different
// from save block. If immediate dominator is not different, bail out.
Save = FindIDom<>(*Save, Save->predecessors(), *MDT);
if (!Save)
break;
} else {
// If the loop does not exit, there is no point in looking
// for a post-dominator outside the loop.
SmallVector<MachineBasicBlock*, 4> ExitBlocks;
MLI->getLoopFor(Restore)->getExitingBlocks(ExitBlocks);
// Push Restore outside of this loop.
// Look for the immediate post-dominator of the loop exits.
MachineBasicBlock *IPdom = Restore;
for (MachineBasicBlock *LoopExitBB: ExitBlocks) {
IPdom = FindIDom<>(*IPdom, LoopExitBB->successors(), *MPDT);
if (!IPdom)
break;
}
// If the immediate post-dominator is not in a less nested loop,
// then we are stuck in a program with an infinite loop.
// In that case, we will not find a safe point, hence, bail out.
if (IPdom && MLI->getLoopDepth(IPdom) < MLI->getLoopDepth(Restore))
Restore = IPdom;
else {
Restore = nullptr;
break;
}
}
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
}
}
}
/// Check whether the edge (\p SrcBB, \p DestBB) is a backedge according to MLI.
/// I.e., check if it exists a loop that contains SrcBB and where DestBB is the
/// loop header.
static bool isProperBackedge(const MachineLoopInfo &MLI,
const MachineBasicBlock *SrcBB,
const MachineBasicBlock *DestBB) {
for (const MachineLoop *Loop = MLI.getLoopFor(SrcBB); Loop;
Loop = Loop->getParentLoop()) {
if (Loop->getHeader() == DestBB)
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// Check if the CFG of \p MF is irreducible.
static bool isIrreducibleCFG(const MachineFunction &MF,
const MachineLoopInfo &MLI) {
const MachineBasicBlock *Entry = &*MF.begin();
ReversePostOrderTraversal<const MachineBasicBlock *> RPOT(Entry);
BitVector VisitedBB(MF.getNumBlockIDs());
for (const MachineBasicBlock *MBB : RPOT) {
VisitedBB.set(MBB->getNumber());
for (const MachineBasicBlock *SuccBB : MBB->successors()) {
if (!VisitedBB.test(SuccBB->getNumber()))
continue;
// We already visited SuccBB, thus MBB->SuccBB must be a backedge.
// Check that the head matches what we have in the loop information.
// Otherwise, we have an irreducible graph.
if (!isProperBackedge(MLI, MBB, SuccBB))
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
bool ShrinkWrap::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) {
if (skipFunction(*MF.getFunction()) || MF.empty() || !isShrinkWrapEnabled(MF))
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
return false;
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
DEBUG(dbgs() << "**** Analysing " << MF.getName() << '\n');
init(MF);
if (isIrreducibleCFG(MF, *MLI)) {
// If MF is irreducible, a block may be in a loop without
// MachineLoopInfo reporting it. I.e., we may use the
// post-dominance property in loops, which lead to incorrect
// results. Moreover, we may miss that the prologue and
// epilogue are not in the same loop, leading to unbalanced
// construction/deconstruction of the stack frame.
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Irreducible CFGs are not supported yet\n");
return false;
}
const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = MF.getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
std::unique_ptr<RegScavenger> RS(
TRI->requiresRegisterScavenging(MF) ? new RegScavenger() : nullptr);
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
for (MachineBasicBlock &MBB : MF) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Look into: " << MBB.getNumber() << ' ' << MBB.getName()
<< '\n');
if (MBB.isEHFuncletEntry()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "EH Funclets are not supported yet.\n");
return false;
}
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
for (const MachineInstr &MI : MBB) {
if (!useOrDefCSROrFI(MI, RS.get()))
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
continue;
// Save (resp. restore) point must dominate (resp. post dominate)
// MI. Look for the proper basic block for those.
updateSaveRestorePoints(MBB, RS.get());
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
// If we are at a point where we cannot improve the placement of
// save/restore instructions, just give up.
if (!ArePointsInteresting()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "No Shrink wrap candidate found\n");
return false;
}
// No need to look for other instructions, this basic block
// will already be part of the handled region.
break;
}
}
if (!ArePointsInteresting()) {
// If the points are not interesting at this point, then they must be null
// because it means we did not encounter any frame/CSR related code.
// Otherwise, we would have returned from the previous loop.
assert(!Save && !Restore && "We miss a shrink-wrap opportunity?!");
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Nothing to shrink-wrap\n");
return false;
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n ** Results **\nFrequency of the Entry: " << EntryFreq
<< '\n');
const TargetFrameLowering *TFI = MF.getSubtarget().getFrameLowering();
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
do {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Shrink wrap candidates (#, Name, Freq):\nSave: "
<< Save->getNumber() << ' ' << Save->getName() << ' '
<< MBFI->getBlockFreq(Save).getFrequency() << "\nRestore: "
<< Restore->getNumber() << ' ' << Restore->getName() << ' '
<< MBFI->getBlockFreq(Restore).getFrequency() << '\n');
bool IsSaveCheap, TargetCanUseSaveAsPrologue = false;
if (((IsSaveCheap = EntryFreq >= MBFI->getBlockFreq(Save).getFrequency()) &&
EntryFreq >= MBFI->getBlockFreq(Restore).getFrequency()) &&
((TargetCanUseSaveAsPrologue = TFI->canUseAsPrologue(*Save)) &&
TFI->canUseAsEpilogue(*Restore)))
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
break;
DEBUG(dbgs() << "New points are too expensive or invalid for the target\n");
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
MachineBasicBlock *NewBB;
if (!IsSaveCheap || !TargetCanUseSaveAsPrologue) {
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
Save = FindIDom<>(*Save, Save->predecessors(), *MDT);
if (!Save)
break;
NewBB = Save;
} else {
// Restore is expensive.
Restore = FindIDom<>(*Restore, Restore->successors(), *MPDT);
if (!Restore)
break;
NewBB = Restore;
}
updateSaveRestorePoints(*NewBB, RS.get());
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
} while (Save && Restore);
if (!ArePointsInteresting()) {
++NumCandidatesDropped;
return false;
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Final shrink wrap candidates:\nSave: " << Save->getNumber()
<< ' ' << Save->getName() << "\nRestore: "
<< Restore->getNumber() << ' ' << Restore->getName() << '\n');
MachineFrameInfo &MFI = MF.getFrameInfo();
MFI.setSavePoint(Save);
MFI.setRestorePoint(Restore);
[ShrinkWrap] Add (a simplified version) of shrink-wrapping. This patch introduces a new pass that computes the safe point to insert the prologue and epilogue of the function. The interest is to find safe points that are cheaper than the entry and exits blocks. As an example and to avoid regressions to be introduce, this patch also implements the required bits to enable the shrink-wrapping pass for AArch64. ** Context ** Currently we insert the prologue and epilogue of the method/function in the entry and exits blocks. Although this is correct, we can do a better job when those are not immediately required and insert them at less frequently executed places. The job of the shrink-wrapping pass is to identify such places. ** Motivating example ** Let us consider the following function that perform a call only in one branch of a if: define i32 @f(i32 %a, i32 %b) { %tmp = alloca i32, align 4 %tmp2 = icmp slt i32 %a, %b br i1 %tmp2, label %true, label %false true: store i32 %a, i32* %tmp, align 4 %tmp4 = call i32 @doSomething(i32 0, i32* %tmp) br label %false false: %tmp.0 = phi i32 [ %tmp4, %true ], [ %a, %0 ] ret i32 %tmp.0 } On AArch64 this code generates (removing the cfi directives to ease readabilities): _f: ; @f ; BB#0: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething LBB0_2: ; %false mov sp, x29 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 ret With shrink-wrapping we could generate: _f: ; @f ; BB#0: cmp w0, w1 b.ge LBB0_2 ; BB#1: ; %true stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! mov x29, sp sub sp, sp, #16 ; =16 stur w0, [x29, #-4] sub x1, x29, #4 ; =4 mov w0, wzr bl _doSomething add sp, x29, #16 ; =16 ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 LBB0_2: ; %false ret Therefore, we would pay the overhead of setting up/destroying the frame only if we actually do the call. ** Proposed Solution ** This patch introduces a new machine pass that perform the shrink-wrapping analysis (See the comments at the beginning of ShrinkWrap.cpp for more details). It then stores the safe save and restore point into the MachineFrameInfo attached to the MachineFunction. This information is then used by the PrologEpilogInserter (PEI) to place the related code at the right place. This pass runs right before the PEI. Unlike the original paper of Chow from PLDI’88, this implementation of shrink-wrapping does not use expensive data-flow analysis and does not need hack to properly avoid frequently executed point. Instead, it relies on dominance and loop properties. The pass is off by default and each target can opt-in by setting the EnableShrinkWrap boolean to true in their derived class of TargetPassConfig. This setting can also be overwritten on the command line by using -enable-shrink-wrap. Before you try out the pass for your target, make sure you properly fix your emitProlog/emitEpilog/adjustForXXX method to cope with basic blocks that are not necessarily the entry block. ** Design Decisions ** 1. ShrinkWrap is its own pass right now. It could frankly be merged into PEI but for debugging and clarity I thought it was best to have its own file. 2. Right now, we only support one save point and one restore point. At some point we can expand this to several save point and restore point, the impacted component would then be: - The pass itself: New algorithm needed. - MachineFrameInfo: Hold a list or set of Save/Restore point instead of one pointer. - PEI: Should loop over the save point and restore point. Anyhow, at least for this first iteration, I do not believe this is interesting to support the complex cases. We should revisit that when we motivating examples. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9210 <rdar://problem/3201744> llvm-svn: 236507
2015-05-06 01:38:16 +08:00
++NumCandidates;
return false;
}
bool ShrinkWrap::isShrinkWrapEnabled(const MachineFunction &MF) {
const TargetFrameLowering *TFI = MF.getSubtarget().getFrameLowering();
switch (EnableShrinkWrapOpt) {
case cl::BOU_UNSET:
return TFI->enableShrinkWrapping(MF) &&
// Windows with CFI has some limitations that make it impossible
// to use shrink-wrapping.
!MF.getTarget().getMCAsmInfo()->usesWindowsCFI() &&
// Sanitizers look at the value of the stack at the location
// of the crash. Since a crash can happen anywhere, the
// frame must be lowered before anything else happen for the
// sanitizers to be able to get a correct stack frame.
!(MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeAddress) ||
MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeThread) ||
MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeMemory));
// If EnableShrinkWrap is set, it takes precedence on whatever the
// target sets. The rational is that we assume we want to test
// something related to shrink-wrapping.
case cl::BOU_TRUE:
return true;
case cl::BOU_FALSE:
return false;
}
llvm_unreachable("Invalid shrink-wrapping state");
}