Features UnalignedBufferAccess and UnalignedDSAccess are now used to determine
whether hardware supports such access.
UnalignedAccessMode should be used to enable them.
hasUnalignedBufferAccessEnabled() and hasUnalignedDSAccessEnabled() can be
now used to quickly check both.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84522
Adjust alignment requirements for ds_read/write_b96/b128.
GFX9 and onwards allow misaligned access for reads and writes but only if
SH_MEM_CONFIG.alignment_mode allows it.
UnalignedDSAccess is set on GCN subtargets from GFX9 onward to let us know if we
can relax alignment requirements.
UnalignedAccessMode acts similary to UnalignedBufferAccess for DS instructions
but only from GFX9 onward and is supposed to match alignment_mode. By default
alignment of 4 is required.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82788
Summary: To match NewPM name. Also the new name is clearer and more consistent.
Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, asbirlea, kerbowa, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84542
This is apparently worse than 1-byte alignment. This does not attempt
to decompose 2-byte aligned wide stores, but will stop trying to
produce them.
Also fix bug in LoadStoreVectorizer which was decreasing the alignment
and vectorizing stack accesses. It was assuming a stack object was an
alloca that could have its base alignment changed, which is not true
if the pointer is derived from a function argument.
Added code to truncate or shrink offsets so that we can continue
base pointer search if size has changed along the way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65612
llvm-svn: 367646
The previous change to fix crash in the vectorizer introduced
performance regressions. The condition to preserve pointer
address space during the search is too tight, we only need to
match the size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65600
llvm-svn: 367624
When vectorizer strips pointers it can eventually end up with
pointers of two different sizes, then SCEV will crash.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65480
llvm-svn: 367443
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
If the alignment is at least 4, this should report true.
Something still seems off with how < 4-byte types are
handled here though.
Fixing this seems to change how some combines get
to where they get, but somehow isn't changing the net
result.
llvm-svn: 342879
This was checking the hardcoded address space 0 for the stack.
Additionally, this should be checking for legality with
the adjusted alignment, so defer the alignment check.
Also try to split if the unaligned access isn't allowed.
llvm-svn: 342442
In some cases LSV sees (load/store _ (select _ <pointer expression>
<pointer expression>)) patterns in input IR, often due to sinking and
other forms of CFG simplification, sometimes interspersed with
bitcasts and all-constant-indices GEPs. With this
patch`areConsecutivePointers` method would attempt to handle select
instructions. This leads to an increased number of successful
vectorizations.
Technically, select instructions could appear in index arithmetic as
well, however, we don't see those in our test suites / benchmarks.
Also, there is a lot more freedom in IR shapes computing integral
indices in general than in what's common in pointer computations, and
it appears that it's quite unreliable to do anything short of making
select instructions first class citizens of Scalar Evolution, which
for the purposes of this patch is most definitely an overkill.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49428
llvm-svn: 337965
This reapplies commit r337489 reverted by r337541
Additionally, this commit contains a speculative fix to the issue reported in r337541
(the report does not contain an actionable reproducer, just a stack trace)
llvm-svn: 337606
This is mostly a preparation work for adding a limited support for
select instructions. It proved to be difficult to do due to size and
irregularity of Vectorizer::isConsecutiveAccess, this is fixed here I
believe.
It also turned out that these changes make it simpler to finish one of
the TODOs and fix a number of other small issues, namely:
1. Looking through bitcasts to a type of a different size (requires
careful tracking of the original load/store size and some math
converting sizes in bytes to expected differences in indices of GEPs).
2. Reusing partial analysis of pointers done by first attempt in proving
them consecutive instead of starting from scratch. This added limited
support for nested GEPs co-existing with difficult sext/zext
instructions. This also required a careful handling of negative
differences between constant parts of offsets.
3. Handing a case where the first pointer index is not an add, but
something else (a function parameter for instance).
I observe an increased number of successful vectorizations on a large
set of shader programs. Only few shaders are affected, but those that
are affected sport >5% less loads and stores than before the patch.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential-Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49342
llvm-svn: 337489
Summary: Currently, isConsecutiveAccess() detects two pointers(PtrA and PtrB) as consecutive by
comparing PtrB with BaseDelta+PtrA. This works when both pointers are factorized or
both of them are not factorized. But isConsecutiveAccess() fails if one of the
pointers is factorized but the other one is not.
Here is an example:
PtrA = 4 * (A + B)
PtrB = 4 + 4A + 4B
This patch uses getMinusSCEV() to compute the distance between two pointers.
getMinusSCEV() allows combining the expressions and computing the simplified distance.
Author: FarhanaAleen
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49516
llvm-svn: 337471
The memory location an invariant load is using can never be clobbered by
any store, so it's safe to move the load ahead of the store.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46011
llvm-svn: 330725
Author: Samuel Pitoiset
ds_read_b128 and ds_write_b128 have been recently enabled
under the amdgpu-ds128 option because the performance benefit
is unclear.
Though, using 128-bit loads/stores for the local address space
appears to introduce regressions in tessellation shaders. Not
sure what is broken, but as ds_read_b128/ds_write_b128 are not
enabled by default, just introduce a global option and enable
128-bit only if requested (until it's fixed/used correctly).
v2: - fix regressions in merge-stores.ll and multiple_tails.ll
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105464
llvm-svn: 329764
Summary: Starting from GCN 2nd generation, ISA supports ds_read_b128 on top of ds_read_b64.
This patch supports ds_read_b128 instruction pattern and generation of this instruction.
In the vectorizer, this patch also widen the vector length so that vectorizer generates
128 bit loads for local address-space which gets translated to ds_read_b128.
Since the performance benefit is not clear; compiler generates ds_read_b128 under -amdgpu-ds128.
Author: FarhanaAleen
Reviewed By: rampitec, arsenm
Subscribers: llvm-commits, AMDGPU
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44210
llvm-svn: 327153
Summary:
We no longer add vectors of pointers as candidates for
load/store vectorization. It does not seem to work anyway,
but without this patch we can end up in asserts when trying
to create casts between an integer type and the pointer of
vectors type.
The test case I've added used to assert like this when trying to
cast between i64 and <2 x i16*>:
opt: ../lib/IR/Instructions.cpp:2565: Assertion `castIsValid(op, S, Ty) && "Invalid cast!"' failed.
#0 PrintStackTraceSignalHandler(void*)
#1 SignalHandler(int)
#2 __restore_rt
#3 __GI_raise
#4 __GI_abort
#5 __GI___assert_fail
#6 llvm::CastInst::Create(llvm::Instruction::CastOps, llvm::Value*, llvm::Type*, llvm::Twine const&, llvm::Instruction*)
#7 llvm::IRBuilder<llvm::ConstantFolder, llvm::IRBuilderDefaultInserter>::CreateBitOrPointerCast(llvm::Value*, llvm::Type*, llvm::Twine const&)
#8 Vectorizer::vectorizeStoreChain(llvm::ArrayRef<llvm::Instruction*>, llvm::SmallPtrSet<llvm::Instruction*, 16u>*)
Reviewers: arsenm
Reviewed By: arsenm
Subscribers: nhaehnle, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39296
llvm-svn: 316665
Currently the default C calling convention functions are treated
the same as compute kernels. Make this explicit so the default
calling convention can be changed to a non-kernel.
Converted with perl -pi -e 's/define void/define amdgpu_kernel void/'
on the relevant test directories (and undoing in one place that actually
wanted a non-kernel).
llvm-svn: 298444
Implement isLegalToVectorizeLoadChain for AMDGPU to avoid
producing private address spaces accesses that will need to be
split up later. This was doing the wrong thing in the case
where the queried chain was an even number of elements.
A possible <4 x i32> store was being split into
store <2 x i32>
store i32
store i32
rather than
store <2 x i32>
store <2 x i32>
when legal.
llvm-svn: 295933
Summary:
The "getVectorizablePrefix" method would give up if it found an aliasing load for a store chain.
In practice, the aliasing load can be treated as a memory barrier and all stores that precede it
are a valid vectorizable prefix.
Issue found by volkan in D26962. Testcase is a pruned version of the one in the original patch.
Reviewers: jlebar, arsenm, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, wdng, nhaehnle, anna, volkan, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27008
llvm-svn: 287781
Summary:
LSV replaces multiple adjacent loads with one vectorized load and a
bunch of extractelement instructions. This patch makes the
extractelement instructions' names match those of the original loads,
for (hopefully) improved readability.
Reviewers: asbirlea, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23748
llvm-svn: 280818
Summary:
LSV was using two vector sets (heads and tails) to track pairs of adjiacent position to vectorize.
A recent optimization is trying to obtain the longest chain to vectorize and assumes the positions
in heads(H) and tails(T) match, which is not the case is there are multiple tails for the same head.
e.g.:
i1: store a[0]
i2: store a[1]
i3: store a[1]
Leads to:
H: i1
T: i2 i3
Instead of:
H: i1 i1
T: i2 i3
So the positions for instructions that follow i3 will have different indexes in H/T.
This patch resolves PR29148.
This issue also surfaced the fact that if the chain is too long, and TLI
returns a "not-fast" answer, the whole chain will be abandoned for
vectorization, even though a smaller one would be beneficial.
Added a testcase and FIXME for this.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, arsenm, jlebar
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, wdng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24057
llvm-svn: 280179
Summary:
getVectorizablePrefix previously didn't work properly in the face of
aliasing loads/stores. It unwittingly assumed that the loads/stores
appeared in the BB in address order. If they didn't, it would do the
wrong thing.
Reviewers: asbirlea, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: arsenm, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22535
llvm-svn: 276072
Summary:
Previously, the insertion point for stores was the last instruction in
Chain *before calling getVectorizablePrefixEndIdx*. Thus if
getVectorizablePrefixEndIdx didn't return Chain.size(), we still would
insert at the last instruction in Chain.
This patch changes our internal API a bit in an attempt to make it less
prone to this sort of error. As a result, we end up recalculating the
Chain's boundary instructions, but I think worrying about the speed hit
of this is a premature optimization right now.
Reviewers: asbirlea, tstellarAMD
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, arsenm, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22534
llvm-svn: 276056
Summary:
Aiming to correct the ordering of loads/stores. This patch changes the
insert point for loads to the position of the first load.
It updates the ordering method for loads to insert before, rather than after.
Before this patch the following sequence:
"load a[1], store a[1], store a[0], load a[2]"
Would incorrectly vectorize to "store a[0,1], load a[1,2]".
The correctness check was assuming the insertion point for loads is at
the position of the first load, when in practice it was at the last
load. An alternative fix would have been to invert the correctness check.
The current fix changes insert position but also requires reordering of
instructions before the vectorized load.
Updated testcases to reflect the changes.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, llvm-commits, jlebar, arsenm
Subscribers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22071
llvm-svn: 275117
Summary:
GetBoundryInstruction returns the last instruction as the instruction which follows or end(). Otherwise the last instruction in the boundry set is not being tested by isVectorizable().
Partially solve reordering of instructions. More extensive solution to follow.
Reviewers: tstellarAMD, llvm-commits, jlebar
Subscribers: escha, arsenm, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21934
llvm-svn: 274389
integer.
Fixes issues on some architectures where we use arithmetic ops to build
vectors, which can cause bad things to happen for loads/stores of mixed
types.
Patch by Fiona Glaser
llvm-svn: 274307
Mirko Brkusanin