At O3 we are more willing to increase size if we believe it will improve
performance. The current threshold for tail-duplication of 2 instructions is
conservative, and can be relaxed at O3.
Benchmark results:
llvm test-suite:
6% improvement in aha, due to duplication of loop latch
3% improvement in hexxagon
2% slowdown in lpbench. Seems related, but couldn't completely diagnose.
Internal google benchmark:
Produces 4% improvement on internal google protocol buffer serialization
benchmarks.
Differential-Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32324
llvm-svn: 303084
The use of a DenseMap in precomputeTriangleChains does not cause
non-determinism, even though it is iterated over, as the only thing the
iteration does is to insert entries into a new DenseMap, which is not iterated.
Comment only change.
llvm-svn: 300088
Not clearing was causing non-deterministic compiles for large files. Addresses
for MachineBasicBlocks would end up colliding and we would lay out a block that
we assumed had been pre-computed when it had not been.
llvm-svn: 300022
The math works out where it can actually be counter-productive. The probability
calculations correctly handle the case where the alternative is 0 probability,
rely on those calculations.
Includes a test case that demonstrates the problem.
llvm-svn: 299892
Qin may be large, and Succ may be more frequent than BB. Take these both into
account when deciding if tail-duplication is profitable.
llvm-svn: 299891
Summary:
For the following CFG:
A->B
B->C
A->C
If there is another edge B->D, then ABC should not be considered as triangle.
Reviewers: davidxl, iteratee
Reviewed By: iteratee
Subscribers: nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31310
llvm-svn: 298661
This produces a 1% speedup on an important internal Google benchmark
(protocol buffers), with no other regressions in google or in the llvm
test-suite. Only 5 targets in the entire llvm test-suite are affected,
and on those 5 targets the size increase is 0.027%
llvm-svn: 297925
For chains of triangles with small join blocks that can be tail duplicated, a
simple calculation of probabilities is insufficient. Tail duplication
can be profitable in 3 different ways for these cases:
1) The post-dominators marked 50% are actually taken 56% (This shrinks with
longer chains)
2) The chains are statically correlated. Branch probabilities have a very
U-shaped distribution.
[http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:24015805]
If the branches in a chain are likely to be from the same side of the
distribution as their predecessor, but are independent at runtime, this
transformation is profitable. (Because the cost of being wrong is a small
fixed cost, unlike the standard triangle layout where the cost of being
wrong scales with the # of triangles.)
3) The chains are dynamically correlated. If the probability that a previous
branch was taken positively influences whether the next branch will be
taken
We believe that 2 and 3 are common enough to justify the small margin in 1.
The code pre-scans a function's CFG to identify this pattern and marks the edges
so that the standard layout algorithm can use the computed results.
llvm-svn: 296845
Rename ComputedTrellisEdges to ComputedEdges to allow for other methods of
pre-computing edges.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30308
llvm-svn: 296018
Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally.
A trellis of the shape below:
A B
|\ /|
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
|/ \|
C D
would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify
trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an
increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more
predecessor blocks that all have the same successors.
because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises.
As an example consider the following CFG:
B D F H
/ \ / \ / \ / \
A---C---E---G---Ret
Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions).
The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret.
The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout
A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret
define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1: ; A
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1
optional1: ; B
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2: ; C
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2
optional2: ; D
call void @b()
br label %test3
test3: ; E
%tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4
%tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0
br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3
optional3: ; F
call void @c()
br label %test4
test4: ; G
%tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8
%tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0
br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4
optional4: ; H
call void @d()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
here is the layout after D27742:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; ... Prologue elided
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
; ... More prologue elided
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_3
b .LBB0_4
.LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_4
.LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_5
b .LBB0_6
.LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
b .LBB0_7
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret
ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload
addi 1, 1, 112
ld 0, 16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a
trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts
of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication
accordingly.
This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have
back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating
positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings
of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts
handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also
improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks.
Here is the resulting concrete layout:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_5
.LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
bne 0, .LBB0_7
b .LBB0_8
.LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_2
.LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_3
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522
llvm-svn: 295223
Move a check for blocks that are not candidates for tail duplication up before
the logging. Reduces logging noise. No non-logging changes intended.
llvm-svn: 294086
Anything that needs to be passed to AnalyzeBranch unfortunately can't be const,
or more would be const. Added const_iterator to BlockChain to allow
BlockChain to be const when we don't expect to change it.
llvm-svn: 294085
1. Added comments for options
2. Added missing option cl::desc field
3. Uniified function filter option for graph viewing.
Now PGO count/raw-counts share the same
filter option: -view-bfi-func-name=.
llvm-svn: 293938
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583
llvm-svn: 293716
This reverts commit ada6595a526d71df04988eb0a4b4fe84df398ded.
This needs a simple probability check because there are some cases where it is
not profitable.
llvm-svn: 291695
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27742
llvm-svn: 291609
Summary:
This fixes an issue with MachineBlockPlacement due to a badly timed call
to `analyzeBranch` with `AllowModify` set to true. The timeline is as
follows:
1. `MachineBlockPlacement::maybeTailDuplicateBlock` calls
`TailDup.shouldTailDuplicate` on its argument, which in turn calls
`analyzeBranch` with `AllowModify` set to true.
2. This `analyzeBranch` call edits the terminator sequence of the block
based on the physical layout of the machine function, turning an
unanalyzable non-fallthrough block to a unanalyzable fallthrough
block. Normally MBP bails out of rearranging such blocks, but this
block was unanalyzable non-fallthrough (and thus rearrangeable) the
first time MBP looked at it, and so it goes ahead and decides where
it should be placed in the function.
3. When placing this block MBP fails to analyze and thus update the
block in keeping with the new physical layout.
Concretely, before (1) we have something like:
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL1 >
jmp LBL1
LBL1:
... A
LBL2:
... B
```
In (2), analyze branch simplifies this to
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL2 >
;; jmp LBL1 <- redundant jump removed
LBL1:
... A
LBL2:
... B
```
In (3), MachineBlockPlacement goes ahead with its plan of putting LBL2
after the first block since that is profitable.
```
LBL0:
< unknown terminator op that may branch to LBL2 >
;; jmp LBL1 <- redundant jump
LBL2:
... B
LBL1:
... A
```
and the program now has incorrect behavior (we no longer fall-through
from `LBL0` to `LBL1`) because MBP can no longer edit LBL0.
There are several possible solutions, but I went with removing the teeth
off of the `analyzeBranch` calls in TailDuplicator. That makes thinking
about the result of these calls easier, and breaks nothing in the lit
test suite.
I've also added some bookkeeping to the MachineBlockPlacement pass and
used that to write an assert that would have caught this.
Reviewers: chandlerc, gberry, MatzeB, iteratee
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27783
llvm-svn: 289764
We fail to produce bit-to-bit matching stage2 and stage3 compiler in PGO
bootstrap build. The reason is because LoopBlockSet is of SmallPtrSet type
whose iterating order depends on the pointer value.
This patch fixes this issue by changing to use SmallSetVector.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D26634
llvm-svn: 287148
Summary:
Currently PreferredLoopExit is set only in buildLoopChains, which is
never called if there are no MachineLoops.
MSan is currently broken by this:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/builds/145/steps/check-llvm%20msan/logs/stdio
This is a naive fix to get things green again. iteratee: you may have a better fix.
This change will also mean PreferredLoopExit will not carry over if
buildCFGChains() is called a second time in runOnMachineFunction, this
appears to be the right thing.
Reviewers: bkramer, iteratee, echristo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26069
llvm-svn: 285757
There is a use after free bug in the existing code. Loop layout selects
a preferred exit block, and then lays out the loop. If this block is
removed during layout, it needs to be invalidated to prevent a use after
free.
llvm-svn: 285348
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283934
This reverts commit r283842.
test/CodeGen/X86/tail-dup-repeat.ll causes and llc crash with our
internal testing. I'll share a link with you.
llvm-svn: 283857
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Issue with early tail-duplication of blocks that branch to a fallthrough
predecessor fixed with test case: tail-dup-branch-to-fallthrough.ll
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283842
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
This is prep work for allowing the threshold to be different during layout,
and to enforce a single threshold between merging and duplicating during
layout. No observable change intended.
llvm-svn: 279117
Do not reorder and move up a loop latch block before a loop header
when optimising for size because this will generate an extra
unconditional branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22521
llvm-svn: 278840
The following pattern was being layed out poorly:
A
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
D E ? (Doesn't matter)
Where A->B is far more likely than A->C, and prob(B->D) = prob(B->E)
The current algorithm gives:
A,B,C,E (D goes on worklist)
It does this even if C has a frequency count of 0. This patch
adjusts the layout calculation so that if freq(B->E) >> freq(C->E)
then we go ahead and layout E rather than C. Fallthrough half the time
is better than fallthrough never, or fallthrough very rarely. The
resulting layout is:
A,B,E, (C and D are in a worklist)
llvm-svn: 277187
Kyle Butt