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
CGP currently drops select's MD_prof profile data when
generating conditional branch which can lead to bad
code layout. The patch fixes the issue.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D24169
llvm-svn: 280600
This is part of solving PR27344:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27344
CGP should undo the SimplifyCFG transform for the same reason that earlier patches have used this
same mechanism: it's possible that passes between SimplifyCFG and CGP may be able to optimize the
IR further with a select in place.
For the TLI hook default, >99% taken or not taken is chosen as the default threshold for a highly
predictable branch. Even the most limited HW branch predictors will be correct on this branch almost
all the time, so even a massive mispredict penalty perf loss would be overcome by the win from all
the times the branch was predicted correctly.
As a follow-up, we could make the default target hook less conservative by using the SchedMachineModel's
MispredictPenalty. Or we could just let targets override the default by implementing the hook with that
and other target-specific options. Note that trying to statically determine mispredict rates for
close-to-balanced profile weight data is generally impossible if the HW is sufficiently advanced. Ie,
50/50 taken/not-taken might still be 100% predictable.
Finally, note that this patch as-is will not solve PR27344 because the current __builtin_unpredictable()
branch weight default values are 4 and 64. A proposal to change that is in D19435.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19488
llvm-svn: 267572
Summary:
Both the hardware and LLVM have changed since 2012.
Now, load-based heuristic don't show big differences any more on OoO cores.
There is no notable regressons and improvements on spec2000/2006. (Cortex-A57, Core i5).
Reviewers: spatel, zansari
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16836
llvm-svn: 261809
Essentially the same as the GEP change in r230786.
A similar migration script can be used to update test cases, though a few more
test case improvements/changes were required this time around: (r229269-r229278)
import fileinput
import sys
import re
pat = re.compile(r"((?:=|:|^)\s*load (?:atomic )?(?:volatile )?(.*?))(| addrspace\(\d+\) *)\*($| *(?:%|@|null|undef|blockaddress|getelementptr|addrspacecast|bitcast|inttoptr|\[\[[a-zA-Z]|\{\{).*$)")
for line in sys.stdin:
sys.stdout.write(re.sub(pat, r"\1, \2\3*\4", line))
Reviewers: rafael, dexonsmith, grosser
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7649
llvm-svn: 230794
This was done with the following sed invocation to catch label lines demarking function boundaries:
sed -i '' "s/^;\( *\)\([A-Z0-9_]*\):\( *\)test\([A-Za-z0-9_-]*\):\( *\)$/;\1\2-LABEL:\3test\4:\5/g" test/CodeGen/*/*.ll
which was written conservatively to avoid false positives rather than false negatives. I scanned through all the changes and everything looks correct.
llvm-svn: 186258
The primitive conservative heuristic seems to give a slight overall
improvement while not regressing stuff. Make it available to wider
testing. If you notice any speed regressions (or significant code
size regressions) let me know!
llvm-svn: 156258
This came up when a change in block placement formed a cmov and slowed down a
hot loop by 50%:
ucomisd (%rdi), %xmm0
cmovbel %edx, %esi
cmov is a really bad choice in this context because it doesn't get branch
prediction. If we emit it as a branch, an out-of-order CPU can do a better job
(if the branch is predicted right) and avoid waiting for the slow load+compare
instruction to finish. Of course it won't help if the branch is unpredictable,
but those are really rare in practice.
This patch uses a dumb conservative heuristic, it turns all cmovs that have one
use and a direct memory operand into branches. cmovs usually save some code
size, so we disable the transform in -Os mode. In-Order architectures are
unlikely to benefit as well, those are included in the
"predictableSelectIsExpensive" flag.
It would be better to reuse branch probability info here, but BPI doesn't
support select instructions currently. It would make sense to use the same
heuristics as the if-converter pass, which does the opposite direction of this
transform.
Test suite shows a small improvement here and there on corei7-level machines,
but the actual results depend a lot on the used microarchitecture. The
transformation is currently disabled by default and available by passing the
-enable-cgp-select2branch flag to the code generator.
Thanks to Chandler for the initial test case to him and Evan Cheng for providing
me with comments and test-suite numbers that were more stable than mine :)
llvm-svn: 156234
Kyle Butt