Commit Graph

17 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Florian Hahn fc97b6173f [LoopUnroll] Peel off iterations if it makes conditions true/false.
If the loop body contains conditions of the form IndVar < #constant, we
can remove the checks by peeling off #constant iterations.

This improves codegen for PR34364.

Reviewers: mkuper, mkazantsev, efriedma

Reviewed By: mkazantsev

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43876

llvm-svn: 327671
2018-03-15 21:34:43 +00:00
David Green 7c35de124a [Dominators] Remove verifyDomTree and add some verifying for Post Dom Trees
Removes verifyDomTree, using assert(verify()) everywhere instead, and
changes verify a little to always run IsSameAsFreshTree first in order
to print good output when we find errors. Also adds verifyAnalysis for
PostDomTrees, which will allow checking of PostDomTrees it the same way
we check DomTrees and MachineDomTrees.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41298

llvm-svn: 326315
2018-02-28 11:00:08 +00:00
Hiroshi Inoue d24ddcd6c4 [NFC] fix trivial typos in comments
"the the" -> "the"

llvm-svn: 322934
2018-01-19 10:55:29 +00:00
Easwaran Raman a17f220590 Add hasProfileData() to check if a function has profile data. NFC.
Summary:
This replaces calls to getEntryCount().hasValue() with hasProfileData
that does the same thing. This refactoring is useful to do before adding
synthetic function entry counts but also a useful cleanup IMO even
otherwise. I have used hasProfileData instead of hasRealProfileData as
David had earlier suggested since I think profile implies "real" and I
use the phrase "synthetic entry count" and not "synthetic profile count"
but I am fine calling it hasRealProfileData if you prefer.

Reviewers: davidxl, silvas

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41461

llvm-svn: 321331
2017-12-22 01:33:52 +00:00
Eugene Zelenko 57bd5a0274 [Transforms] Fix some Clang-tidy modernize and Include What You Use warnings; other minor fixes (NFC).
llvm-svn: 316724
2017-10-27 01:09:08 +00:00
Max Kazantsev 751579cac0 [LoopPeeling] Get rid of Phis that become invariant after N steps
This patch is a generalization of the improvement introduced in rL296898.
Previously, we were able to peel one iteration of a loop to get rid of a Phi that becomes
an invariant on the 2nd iteration. In more general case, if a Phi becomes invariant after
N iterations, we can peel N times and turn it into invariant.
In order to do this, we for every Phi in loop's header we define the Invariant Depth value
which is calculated as follows:

Given %x = phi <Inputs from above the loop>, ..., [%y, %back.edge].

If %y is a loop invariant, then Depth(%x) = 1.
If %y is a Phi from the loop header, Depth(%x) = Depth(%y) + 1.
Otherwise, Depth(%x) is infinite.
Notice that if we peel a loop, all Phis with Depth = 1 become invariants,
and all other Phis with finite depth decrease the depth by 1.
Thus, peeling N first iterations allows us to turn all Phis with Depth <= N
into invariants.

Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, mkuper, skatkov, anna, sanjoy

Reviewed By: sanjoy

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31613

llvm-svn: 300446
2017-04-17 09:52:02 +00:00
Max Kazantsev 8ed6b66d85 [LoopPeeling] Fix condition for phi-eliminating peeling
When peeling loops basing on phis becoming invariants, we make a wrong loop size check.
UP.Threshold should be compared against the total numbers of instructions after the transformation,
which is equal to 2 * LoopSize in case of peeling one iteration.
We should also check that the maximum allowed number of peeled iterations is not zero.

Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, mkuper

Reviewed By: mkuper

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31753

llvm-svn: 300441
2017-04-17 05:38:28 +00:00
Serge Pavlov b71bb80c2d [LoopUnroll] Remap references in peeled iteration
References in cloned blocks must be remapped prior to dominator
calculation.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31281

llvm-svn: 298811
2017-03-26 16:46:53 +00:00
Michael Kuperstein 2da2bfa088 [LoopUnroll] Don't peel loops where the latch isn't the exiting block
Peeling assumed this doesn't happen, but didn't check it.
This fixes PR32178.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30757

llvm-svn: 297993
2017-03-16 21:07:48 +00:00
Sanjoy Das 30c3538e2e [LoopUnrolling] Fix loop size check for peeling
Summary:
We should check if loop size allows us to peel at least one iteration
before we do so.

Patch by Max Kazantsev!

Reviewers: sanjoy, mkuper, efriedma

Reviewed By: mkuper

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30632

llvm-svn: 297122
2017-03-07 06:03:15 +00:00
Sanjoy Das 0a4ec554c1 Fix a compiler warning
llvm-svn: 296903
2017-03-03 18:53:09 +00:00
Sanjoy Das 664c925a57 [LoopUnrolling] Peel loops with invariant backedge Phi input
Summary:
If a loop contains a Phi node which has an invariant input from back
edge, it is profitable to peel such loops (rather than unroll them) to
use the advantage that this Phi is always invariant starting from 2nd
iteration. After the 1st iteration is peeled, other optimizations can
potentially simplify calculations with this invariant.

Patch by Max Kazantsev!

Reviewers: sanjoy, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, mkuper, reames

Reviewed By: mkuper

Subscribers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30161

llvm-svn: 296898
2017-03-03 18:19:15 +00:00
Sanjoy Das eed71b9e1c [LoopUnrolling] Re-prioritize Peeling and Partial unrolling
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.

This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.

Patch by Max Kazantsev!

Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper

Reviewed By: mkuper

Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243

llvm-svn: 296897
2017-03-03 18:19:10 +00:00
Serge Pavlov 098ee2fe02 Update domtree incrementally in loop peeling.
With this change dominator tree remains in sync after each step of loop
peeling.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29029

llvm-svn: 292895
2017-01-24 06:58:39 +00:00
Eli Friedman 0a2174533e Preserve domtree and loop-simplify for runtime unrolling.
Mostly straightforward changes; we just didn't do the computation before.
One sort of interesting change in LoopUnroll.cpp: we weren't handling
dominance for children of the loop latch correctly, but
foldBlockIntoPredecessor hid the problem for complete unrolling.

Currently punting on loop peeling; made some minor changes to isolate
that problem to LoopUnrollPeel.cpp.

Adds a flag -unroll-verify-domtree; it verifies the domtree immediately
after we finish updating it. This is on by default for +Asserts builds.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28073

llvm-svn: 292447
2017-01-18 23:26:37 +00:00
Xin Tong 2940231ff0 Make sure total loop body weight is preserved in loop peeling
Summary:
Regardless how the loop body weight is distributed, we should preserve
total loop body weight. i.e. we should have same weight reaching the body of the loop
or its duplicates in peeled and unpeeled case.

Reviewers: mkuper, davidxl, anemet

Subscribers: llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28179

llvm-svn: 290833
2017-01-02 20:27:23 +00:00
Michael Kuperstein b151a641aa [LoopUnroll] Implement profile-based loop peeling
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.

The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.

This is currently disabled by default.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963

llvm-svn: 288274
2016-11-30 21:13:57 +00:00