Summary:
This extends the PeelingModuloScheduleExpander to generate prolog and epilog code,
and correctly stitch uses through the prolog, kernel, epilog DAG.
The key concept in this patch is to ensure that all transforms are *local*; only a
function of a block and its immediate predecessor and successor. By defining the problem in this way
we can inductively rewrite the entire DAG using only local knowledge that is easy to
reason about.
For example, we assume that all prologs and epilogs are near-perfect clones of the
steady-state kernel. This means that if a block has an instruction that is predicated out,
we can redirect all users of that instruction to that equivalent instruction in our
immediate predecessor. As all blocks are clones, every instruction must have an equivalent in
every other block.
Similarly we can make the assumption by construction that if a value defined in a block is used
outside that block, the only possible user is its immediate successors. We maintain this
even for values that are used outside the loop by creating a limited form of LCSSA.
This code isn't small, but it isn't complex.
Enabled a bunch of testing from Hexagon. There are a couple of tests not enabled yet;
I'm about 80% sure there isn't buggy codegen but the tests are checking for patterns
that we don't produce. Those still need a bit more investigation. In the meantime we
(Google) are happy with the code produced by this on our downstream SMS implementation,
and believe it generates correct code.
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, jsji, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68205
llvm-svn: 373462
The patch contains severals changes needed to pipeline an example
that was transformed so that a Phi with a subreg is converted to
copies.
The pipeliner wasn't working for a couple of reasons.
- The RecMII was 3 instead of 2 due to the extra copies.
- Copy instructions contained a latency of 1.
- The node order algorithm was not choosing the best "bottom"
node, which caused an instruction to be scheduled that had a
predecessor and successor already scheduled.
- Updated the Hexagon Machine Scheduler to check if the node is
latency bound when adding the cost for a 0-latency dependence.
The RecMII was 3 because the computation looks at the number of
nodes in the recurrence. The extra copy is an extra node but
it shouldn't increase the latency. The new RecMII computation
looks at the latency of the instructions in the recurrence. We
changed the latency of the dependence of a copy to 0. The latency
computation for the copy also checks the use of the copy (similar
to a reg_sequence).
The node order algorithm was not choosing the last instruction
in the recurrence for a bottom up traversal. This was when the
last instruction is a copy. A check was added when choosing the
instruction to check for NodeNum if the maxASAP is the same. This
means that the scheduler will not end up with another node in
the recurrence that has both a predecessor and successor already
scheduled.
The cost computation in Hexagon Machine Scheduler adds cost when
an instruction can be packetized with a zero-latency instruction.
We should only do this if the schedule is latency bound.
Patch by Brendon Cahoon.
llvm-svn: 328542
Summary:
This pass sinks COPY instructions into a successor block, if the COPY is not
used in the current block and the COPY is live-in to a single successor
(i.e., doesn't require the COPY to be duplicated). This avoids executing the
the copy on paths where their results aren't needed. This also exposes
additional opportunites for dead copy elimination and shrink wrapping.
These copies were either not handled by or are inserted after the MachineSink
pass. As an example of the former case, the MachineSink pass cannot sink
COPY instructions with allocatable source registers; for AArch64 these type
of copy instructions are frequently used to move function parameters (PhyReg)
into virtual registers in the entry block..
For the machine IR below, this pass will sink %w19 in the entry into its
successor (%bb.1) because %w19 is only live-in in %bb.1.
```
%bb.0:
%wzr = SUBSWri %w1, 1
%w19 = COPY %w0
Bcc 11, %bb.2
%bb.1:
Live Ins: %w19
BL @fun
%w0 = ADDWrr %w0, %w19
RET %w0
%bb.2:
%w0 = COPY %wzr
RET %w0
```
As we sink %w19 (CSR in AArch64) into %bb.1, the shrink-wrapping pass will be
able to see %bb.0 as a candidate.
With this change I observed 12% more shrink-wrapping candidate and 13% more dead copies deleted in spec2000/2006/2017 on AArch64.
Reviewers: qcolombet, MatzeB, thegameg, mcrosier, gberry, hfinkel, john.brawn, twoh, RKSimon, sebpop, kparzysz
Reviewed By: sebpop
Subscribers: evandro, sebpop, sfertile, aemerson, mgorny, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41463
llvm-svn: 328237
James Molloy