analyses when we're about to break apart an SCC.
We can't wait until after breaking apart the SCC to invalidate things:
1) Which SCC do we then invalidate? All of them?
2) Even if we invalidate all of them, a newly created SCC may not have
a proxy that will convey the invalidation to functions!
Previously we only invalidated one of the SCCs and too late. This led to
stale analyses remaining in the cache. And because the caching strategy
actually works, they would get used and chaos would ensue.
Doing invalidation early is somewhat pessimizing though if we *know*
that the SCC structure won't change. So it turns out that the design to
make the mutation API force the caller to know the *kind* of mutation in
advance was indeed 100% correct and we didn't do enough of it. So this
change also splits two cases of switching a call edge to a ref edge into
two separate APIs so that callers can clearly test for this and take the
easy path without invalidating when appropriate. This is particularly
important in this case as we expect most inlines to be between functions
in separate SCCs and so the common case is that we don't have to so
aggressively invalidate analyses.
The LCG API change in turn needed some basic cleanups and better testing
in its unittest. No interesting functionality changed there other than
more coverage of the returned sequence of SCCs.
While this seems like an obvious improvement over the current state, I'd
like to revisit the core concept of invalidating within the CG-update
layer at all. I'm wondering if we would be better served forcing the
callers to handle the invalidation beforehand in the cases that they
can handle it. An interesting example is when we want to teach the
inliner to *update and preserve* analyses. But we can cross that bridge
when we get there.
With this patch, the new pass manager an build all of the LLVM test
suite at -O3 and everything passes. =D I haven't bootstrapped yet and
I'm sure there are still plenty of bugs, but this gives a nice baseline
so I'm going to increasingly focus on fleshing out the missing
functionality, especially the bits that are just turned off right now in
order to let us establish this baseline.
llvm-svn: 290664
due to a call cycle.
This actually crashed the ref removal before.
I've added a unittest that covers this kind of interesting graph
structure and mutation.
llvm-svn: 290645
constant expression and to correctly form function reference edges
through them without crashing because one of the operands (the
`BasicBlock` isn't actually a constant despite being an operand of
a constant).
llvm-svn: 290581
This mostly gives us nice unittesting of the predicates themselves. I'll
start using them further in subsequent commits to help test the actual
operations performed on the graph.
llvm-svn: 287698
The basic inlining operation makes the following changes to the call graph:
1) Add edges that were previously transitive edges. This is always trivial and
this patch gives the LCG helper methods to make this more convenient.
2) Remove the inlined edge. We had existing support for this, but it contained
bugs that needed to be fixed. Testing in the same pattern as the inliner
exposes these bugs very nicely.
3) Delete a function when it becomes dead because it is internal and all calls
have been inlined. The LCG had no support at all for this operation, so this
adds that support.
Two unittests have been added that exercise this specific mutation pattern to
the call graph. They were extremely effective in uncovering bugs. Sadly,
a large fraction of the code here is just to implement those unit tests, but
I think they're paying for themselves. =]
This was split out of a patch that actually uses the routines to
implement inlining in the new pass manager in order to isolate (with
unit tests) the logic that was entirely within the LCG.
Many thanks for the careful review from folks! There will be a few minor
follow-up patches based on the comments in the review as well.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24225
llvm-svn: 283982
LazyCallGraph to support repeated, stable iterations, even in the face
of graph updates.
This is particularly important to allow the CGSCC pass manager to walk
the RefSCCs (and thus everything else) in a module more than once. Lots
of unittests and other tests were hard or impossible to write because
repeated CGSCC pass managers which didn't invalidate the LazyCallGraph
would conclude the module was empty after the first one. =[ Really,
really bad.
The interesting thing is that in many ways this simplifies the code. We
can now re-use the same code for handling reference edge insertion
updates of the RefSCC graph as we use for handling call edge insertion
updates of the SCC graph. Outside of adapting to the shared logic for
this (which isn't trivial, but is *much* simpler than the DFS it
replaces!), the new code involves putting newly created RefSCCs when
deleting a reference edge into the cached list in the correct way, and
to re-formulate the iterator to be stable and effective even in the face
of these kinds of updates.
I've updated the unittests for the LazyCallGraph to re-iterate the
postorder sequence and verify that this all works. We even check for
using alternating iterators to trigger the lazy formation of RefSCCs
after mutation has occured.
It's worth noting that there are a reasonable number of likely
simplifications we can make past this. It isn't clear that we need to
keep the "LeafRefSCCs" around any more. But I've not removed that mostly
because I want this to be a more isolated change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24219
llvm-svn: 281716
At the same time, fixes InstructionsTest::CastInst unittest: yes
you can leave the IR in an invalid state and exit when you don't
destroy the context (like the global one), no longer now.
This is the first part of http://reviews.llvm.org/D19094
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266379
reference-edge SCCs.
This essentially builds a more normal call graph as a subgraph of the
"reference graph" that was the old model. This allows both to exist and
the different use cases to use the aspect which addresses their needs.
Specifically, the pass manager and other *ordering* constrained logic
can use the reference graph to achieve conservative order of visit,
while analyses reasoning about attributes and other properties derived
from reachability can reason about the direct call graph.
Note that this isn't necessarily complete: it doesn't model edges to
declarations or indirect calls. Those can be found by scanning the
instructions of the function if desirable, and in fact every user
currently does this in order to handle things like calls to instrinsics.
If useful, we could consider caching this information in the call graph
to save the instruction scans, but currently that doesn't seem to be
important.
An important realization for why the representation chosen here works is
that the call graph is a formal subset of the reference graph and thus
both can live within the same data structure. All SCCs of the call graph
are necessarily contained within an SCC of the reference graph, etc.
The design is to build 'RefSCC's to model SCCs of the reference graph,
and then within them more literal SCCs for the call graph.
The formation of actual call edge SCCs is not done lazily, unlike
reference edge 'RefSCC's. Instead, once a reference SCC is formed, it
directly builds the call SCCs within it and stores them in a post-order
sequence. This is used to provide a consistent platform for mutation and
update of the graph. The post-order also allows for very efficient
updates in common cases by bounding the number of nodes (and thus edges)
considered.
There is considerable common code that I'm still looking for the best
way to factor out between the various DFS implementations here. So far,
my attempts have made the code harder to read and understand despite
reducing the duplication, which seems a poor tradeoff. I've not given up
on figuring out the right way to do this, but I wanted to wait until
I at least had the system working and tested to continue attempting to
factor it differently.
This also requires introducing several new algorithms in order to handle
all of the incremental update scenarios for the more complex structure
involving two edge colorings. I've tried to comment the algorithms
sufficiently to make it clear how this is expected to work, but they may
still need more extensive documentation.
I know that there are some changes which are not strictly necessarily
coupled here. The process of developing this started out with a very
focused set of changes for the new structure of the graph and
algorithms, but subsequent changes to bring the APIs and code into
consistent and understandable patterns also ended up touching on other
aspects. There was no good way to separate these out without causing
*massive* merge conflicts. Ultimately, to a large degree this is
a rewrite of most of the core algorithms in the LCG class and so I don't
think it really matters much.
Many thanks to the careful review by Sanjoy Das!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16802
llvm-svn: 261040
differentiate between indirect references to functions an direct calls.
This doesn't do a whole lot yet other than change the print out produced
by the analysis, but it lays the groundwork for a very major change I'm
working on next: teaching the call graph to actually be a call graph,
modeling *both* the indirect reference graph and the call graph
simultaneously. More details on that in the next patch though.
The rest of this is essentially a bunch of over-engineering that won't
be interesting until the next patch. But this also isolates essentially
all of the churn necessary to introduce the edge abstraction from the
very important behavior change necessary in order to separately model
the two graphs. So it should make review of the subsequent patch a bit
easier at the cost of making this patch seem poorly motivated. ;]
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16038
llvm-svn: 259463
gcc's (4.7, I think) -Wcomment warning is not "as smart" as clang's and
warns even if the line right after the backslash-newline sequence only has
a line comment that starts at the beginning of the line.
llvm-svn: 220360
* Use StringRef instead of std::string&
* Return a std::unique_ptr<Module> instead of taking an optional module to write
to (was not really used).
* Use current comment style.
* Use current naming convention.
llvm-svn: 215989
operations on the call graph. This one forms a cycle, and while not as
complex as removing an internal edge from an SCC, it involves
a reasonable amount of work to find all of the nodes newly connected in
a cycle.
Also somewhat alarming is the worst case complexity here: it might have
to walk roughly the entire SCC inverse DAG to insert a single edge. This
is carefully documented in the API (I hope).
llvm-svn: 207935
just connects an SCC to one of its descendants directly. Not much of an
impact. The last one is the hard one -- connecting an SCC to one of its
ancestors, and thereby forming a cycle such that we have to merge all
the SCCs participating in the cycle.
llvm-svn: 207751
of SCCs in the SCC DAG. Exercise them in the big graph test case. These
will be especially useful for establishing invariants in insertion
logic.
llvm-svn: 207749
edge entirely within an existing SCC. Shockingly, making the connected
component more connected is ... a total snooze fest. =]
Anyways, its wired up, and I even added a test case to make sure it
pretty much sorta works. =D
llvm-svn: 207631
bits), and discover that it's totally broken. Yay tests. Boo bug. Fix
the basic edge removal so that it works by nulling out the removed edges
rather than actually removing them. This leaves the indices valid in the
map from callee to index, and preserves some of the locality for
iterating over edges. The iterator is made bidirectional to reflect that
it now has to skip over null entries, and the skipping logic is layered
onto it.
As future work, I would like to track essentially the "load factor" of
the edge list, and when it falls below a threshold do a compaction.
An alternative I considered (and continue to consider) is storing the
callees in a doubly linked list where each element of the list is in
a set (which is essentially the classical linked-hash-table
datastructure). The problem with that approach is that either you need
to heap allocate the linked list nodes and use pointers to them, or use
a bucket hash table (with even *more* linked list pointer overhead!),
etc. It's pretty easy to get 5x overhead for values that are just
pointers. So far, I think punching holes in the vector, and periodic
compaction is likely to be much more efficient overall in the space/time
tradeoff.
llvm-svn: 207619
contract (and be much more useful). It now provides exactly the
post-order traversal a caller might need to perform on newly formed
SCCs.
llvm-svn: 207410
API requirements much more obvious.
The key here is that there are two totally different use cases for
mutating the graph. Prior to doing any SCC formation, it is very easy to
mutate the graph. There may be users that want to do small tweaks here,
and then use the already-built graph for their SCC-based operations.
This method remains on the graph itself and is documented carefully as
being cheap but unavailable once SCCs are formed.
Once SCCs are formed, and there is some in-flight DFS building them, we
have to be much more careful in how we mutate the graph. These mutation
operations are sunk onto the SCCs themselves, which both simplifies
things (the code was already there!) and helps make it obvious that
these interfaces are only applicable within that context. The other
primary constraint is that the edge being mutated is actually related to
the SCC on which we call the method. This helps make it obvious that you
cannot arbitrarily mutate some other SCC.
I've tried to write much more complete documentation for the interesting
mutation API -- intra-SCC edge removal. Currently one aspect of this
documentation is a lie (the result list of SCCs) but we also don't even
have tests for that API. =[ I'm going to add tests and fix it to match
the documentation next.
llvm-svn: 207339
than functions. So far, this access pattern is *much* more common. It
seems likely that any user of this interface is going to have nodes at
the point that they are querying the SCCs.
No functionality changed.
llvm-svn: 207045
This implements the core functionality necessary to remove an edge from
the call graph and correctly update both the basic graph and the SCC
structure. As part of that it has to run a tiny (in number of nodes)
Tarjan-style DFS walk of an SCC being mutated to compute newly formed
SCCs, etc.
This is *very rough* and a WIP. I have a bunch of FIXMEs for code
cleanup that will reduce the boilerplate in this change substantially.
I also have a bunch of simplifications to various parts of both
algorithms that I want to make, but first I'd like to have a more
holistic picture. Ideally, I'd also like more testing. I'll probably add
quite a few more unit tests as I go here to cover the various different
aspects and corner cases of removing edges from the graph.
Still, this is, so far, successfully updating the SCC graph in-place
without disrupting the identity established for the existing SCCs even
when we do challenging things like delete the critical edge that made an
SCC cycle at all and have to reform things as a tree of smaller SCCs.
Getting this to work is really critical for the new pass manager as it
is going to associate significant state with the SCC instance and needs
it to be stable. That is also the motivation behind the return of the
newly formed SCCs. Eventually, I'll wire this all the way up to the
public API so that the pass manager can use it to correctly re-enqueue
newly formed SCCs into a fresh postorder traversal.
llvm-svn: 206968
up the stack finishing the exploration of each entries children before
we're finished in addition to accounting for their low-links. Added
a unittest that really hammers home the need for this with interlocking
cycles that would each appear distinct otherwise and crash or compute
the wrong result. As part of this, nuke a stale fixme and bring the rest
of the implementation still more closely in line with the original
algorithm.
llvm-svn: 206966
resisted this for too long. Just with the basic testing here I was able
to exercise the analysis in more detail and sift out both type signature
bugs in the API and a bug in the DFS numbering. All of these are fixed
here as well.
The unittests will be much more important for the mutation support where
it is necessary to craft minimal mutations and then inspect the state of
the graph. There is just no way to do that with a standard FileCheck
test. However, unittesting these kinds of analyses is really quite easy,
especially as they're designed with the new pass manager where there is
essentially no infrastructure required to rig up the core logic and
exercise it at an API level.
As a minor aside about the DFS numbering bug, the DFS numbering used in
LCG is a bit unusual. Rather than numbering from 0, we number from 1,
and use 0 as the sentinel "unvisited" state. Other implementations often
use '-1' for this, but I find it easier to deal with 0 and it shouldn't
make any real difference provided someone doesn't write silly bugs like
forgetting to actually initialize the DFS numbering. Oops. ;]
llvm-svn: 206954
Chandler Carruth