This patch combines some cases of ARMISD::CMOV for integers that arise in comparisons of the form
a != b ? x : 0
a == b ? 0 : x
and that currently (e.g. in Thumb1) are emitted as branches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34515
llvm-svn: 325323
The code wasn't zero-extending correctly, so the comparison could
spuriously fail.
Adds some AArch64 tests to cover this case.
Inspired by D41791.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41798
llvm-svn: 322767
The benchmarking summarized in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113525.html showed
this is beneficial for a wide range of cores.
As is to be expected, quite a few small adaptations are needed to the
regressions tests, as the difference in scheduling results in:
- Quite a few small instruction schedule differences.
- A few changes in register allocation decisions caused by different
instruction schedules.
- A few changes in IfConversion decisions, due to a difference in
instruction schedule and/or the estimated cost of a branch mispredict.
llvm-svn: 306514
Summary: Previously, it had always been materialized as a push/pop sequence.
Reviewers: labrinea, jroelofs
Reviewed By: jroelofs
Subscribers: llvm-commits, rengolin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30648
llvm-svn: 297134
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
Summary:
The original heuristic to break critical edge during machine sink is relatively conservertive: when there is only one instruction sinkable to the critical edge, it is likely that the machine sink pass will not break the critical edge. This leads to many speculative instructions executed at runtime. However, with profile info, we could model the splitting benefits: if the critical edge has 50% taken rate, it would always be beneficial to split the critical edge to avoid the speculated runtime instructions. This patch uses profile to guide critical edge splitting in machine sink pass.
The performance impact on speccpu2006 on Intel sandybridge machines:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 25.3 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 45.96 -0.10%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 41.97 +1.49%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 36.83 -0.96%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 23.81 +0.32%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.17 +0.34%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 48.13 +0.69%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.45 +3.25%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 21.35 -2.06%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 36.02 -2.39%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.7 -0.17%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 22.9 +0.52%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.42 -0.54%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 39.59 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.98 -0.00%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.52 -0.18%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 28.26 +0.02%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 55.44 +3.74%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.67 -0.39%
geometric mean +0.20%
Manually checked 473 and 471 to verify the diff is in the noise range.
Reviewers: rengolin, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24818
llvm-svn: 284757
Summary:
The original heuristic to break critical edge during machine sink is relatively conservertive: when there is only one instruction sinkable to the critical edge, it is likely that the machine sink pass will not break the critical edge. This leads to many speculative instructions executed at runtime. However, with profile info, we could model the splitting benefits: if the critical edge has 50% taken rate, it would always be beneficial to split the critical edge to avoid the speculated runtime instructions. This patch uses profile to guide critical edge splitting in machine sink pass.
The performance impact on speccpu2006 on Intel sandybridge machines:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 25.3 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 45.96 -0.10%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 41.97 +1.49%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 36.83 -0.96%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 23.81 +0.32%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.17 +0.34%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 48.13 +0.69%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.45 +3.25%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 21.35 -2.06%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 36.02 -2.39%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.7 -0.17%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 22.9 +0.52%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.42 -0.54%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 39.59 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.98 -0.00%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.52 -0.18%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 28.26 +0.02%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 55.44 +3.74%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.67 -0.39%
geometric mean +0.20%
Manually checked 473 and 471 to verify the diff is in the noise range.
Reviewers: rengolin, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24818
llvm-svn: 284545
Summary:
The original heuristic to break critical edge during machine sink is relatively conservertive: when there is only one instruction sinkable to the critical edge, it is likely that the machine sink pass will not break the critical edge. This leads to many speculative instructions executed at runtime. However, with profile info, we could model the splitting benefits: if the critical edge has 50% taken rate, it would always be beneficial to split the critical edge to avoid the speculated runtime instructions. This patch uses profile to guide critical edge splitting in machine sink pass.
The performance impact on speccpu2006 on Intel sandybridge machines:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 25.3 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 45.96 -0.10%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 41.97 +1.49%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 36.83 -0.96%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 23.81 +0.32%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.17 +0.34%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 48.13 +0.69%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.45 +3.25%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 21.35 -2.06%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 36.02 -2.39%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.7 -0.17%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 22.9 +0.52%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.42 -0.54%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 39.59 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.98 -0.00%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.52 -0.18%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 28.26 +0.02%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 55.44 +3.74%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.67 -0.39%
geometric mean +0.20%
Manually checked 473 and 471 to verify the diff is in the noise range.
Reviewers: rengolin, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24818
llvm-svn: 284541
ARM counterpart to r248291:
In the comparison failure block of a cmpxchg expansion, the initial
ldrex/ldxr will not be followed by a matching strex/stxr.
On ARM/AArch64, this unnecessarily ties up the execution monitor,
which might have a negative performance impact on some uarchs.
Instead, release the monitor in the failure block.
The clrex instruction was designed for this: use it.
Also see ARMARM v8-A B2.10.2:
"Exclusive access instructions and Shareable memory locations".
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13033
llvm-svn: 248294
On pre-v6 hardware, 'MOV lo, lo' gives undefined results, so such copies need to
be avoided. This patch trades simplicity for implementation time at the expense
of performance... As they say: correctness first, then performance.
See http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075998.html for a few
ideas on how to make this better.
llvm-svn: 216138
We should update the usages to all of the results;
otherwise, we might get assertion failure or SEGV during
the type legalization of ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP_WITH_SUCCESS
with two or more illegal types.
For example, in the following sequence, both i8 and i1
might be illegal in some target, e.g. armv5, mipsel, mips64el,
%0 = cmpxchg i8* %ptr, i8 %desire, i8 %new monotonic monotonic
%1 = extractvalue { i8, i1 } %0, 1
Since both i8 and i1 should be legalized, the corresponding
ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP_WITH_SUCCESS dag will be checked/replaced/updated
twice.
If we don't update the usage to *ALL* of the results in the
first round, the DAG for extractvalue might be processed earlier.
The GetPromotedInteger() will result in assertion failure,
because its operand (i.e. the success bit of cmpxchg) is not
promoted beforehand.
llvm-svn: 213569
Roger Ferrer Ibanez