Since P8 is the oldest machine supported by MASSV pass,
_massv place holder is removed and the oldest version of
MASSV functions is assumed. If the P9 vector specific is
detected in the compilation process, the P8 prefix will
be updated to P9.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98064
Under -O3 and -Ofast, the MASSV conversion prevents the sqrt call to be inlined.
Inline sqrt is faster than MASSV call on leppc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97487
The vector reduction intrinsics started life as experimental ops, so backend support
was lacking. As part of promoting them to 1st-class intrinsics, however, codegen
support was added/improved:
D58015
D90247
So I think it is safe to now remove this complication from IR.
Note that we still have an IR-level codegen expansion pass for these as discussed
in D95690. Removing that is another step in simplifying the logic. Also note that
x86 was already unconditionally forming reductions in IR, so there should be no
difference for x86.
I spot checked a couple of the tests here by running them through opt+llc and did
not see any asm diffs.
If we do find functional differences for other targets, it should be possible
to (at least temporarily) restore the shuffle IR with the ExpandReductions IR
pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96552
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
As mentioned in D93793, there are quite a few places where unary `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Mask)` can be used
instead of `IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector(X, Undef, Mask)`.
Let's update them.
Actually, it would have been more natural if the patches were made in this order:
(1) let them use unary CreateShuffleVector first
(2) update IRBuilder::CreateShuffleVector to use poison as a placeholder value (D93793)
The order is swapped, but in terms of correctness it is still fine.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93923
This patch updates IRBuilder to create insertelement/shufflevector using poison as a placeholder.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93793
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
Interleave for small loops that have reductions inside,
which breaks dependencies and expose.
This gives very significant performance improvements for some benchmarks.
Because small loops could be in very hot functions in real applications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81416
The legacy LoopVectorize has a dependency on InjectTLIMappingsLegacy.
That cannot be expressed in the new PM since they are both normal
passes. Explicitly add -inject-tli-mappings as a pass.
Follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86492.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86561
This was reverted because of a miscompilation. At closer inspection, the
problem was actually visible in a changed llvm regression test too. This
one-line follow up fix/recommit will splat the IV, which is what we are trying
to avoid if unnecessary in general, if tail-folding is requested even if all
users are scalar instructions after vectorisation. Because with tail-folding,
the splat IV will be used by the predicate of the masked loads/stores
instructions. The previous version omitted this, which caused the
miscompilation. The original commit message was:
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
I added test cases that rely on the availability of the PPC target into
the general directory for the loop vectorizer. This causes failures on
bots that don't build the PPC target. Moving them to the PowerPC directory
to fix this.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D67148, we use isFloatTy to test floating
point type, otherwise we return GPRRC.
So 'double' will be classified as GPRRC, which is not accurate.
This patch covers other floating point types.
Reviewed By: #powerpc, nemanjai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71946
We somehow missed doing this when we were working on Power9 exploitation.
This just adds the missing legalization and cost for producing the vector
intrinsics.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70436
In loop-vectorize, interleave count and vector factor depend on target register number. Currently, it does not
estimate different register pressure for different register class separately(especially for scalar type,
float type should not be on the same position with int type), so it's not accurate. Specifically,
it causes too many times interleaving/unrolling, result in too many register spills in loop body and hurting performance.
So we need classify the register classes in IR level, and importantly these are abstract register classes,
and are not the target register class of backend provided in td file. It's used to establish the mapping between
the types of IR values and the number of simultaneous live ranges to which we'd like to limit for some set of those types.
For example, POWER target, register num is special when VSX is enabled. When VSX is enabled, the number of int scalar register is 32(GPR),
float is 64(VSR), but for int and float vector register both are 64(VSR). So there should be 2 kinds of register class when vsx is enabled,
and 3 kinds of register class when VSX is NOT enabled.
It runs on POWER target, it makes big(+~30%) performance improvement in one specific bmk(503.bwaves_r) of spec2017 and no other obvious degressions.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67148
llvm-svn: 374634
Also Revert "[LoopVectorize] Fix non-debug builds after rL374017"
This reverts commit 9f41deccc0.
This reverts commit 18b6fe07bc.
The patch is breaking PowerPC internal build, checked with author, reverting
on behalf of him for now due to timezone.
llvm-svn: 374091
In loop-vectorize, interleave count and vector factor depend on target register number. Currently, it does not
estimate different register pressure for different register class separately(especially for scalar type,
float type should not be on the same position with int type), so it's not accurate. Specifically,
it causes too many times interleaving/unrolling, result in too many register spills in loop body and hurting performance.
So we need classify the register classes in IR level, and importantly these are abstract register classes,
and are not the target register class of backend provided in td file. It's used to establish the mapping between
the types of IR values and the number of simultaneous live ranges to which we'd like to limit for some set of those types.
For example, POWER target, register num is special when VSX is enabled. When VSX is enabled, the number of int scalar register is 32(GPR),
float is 64(VSR), but for int and float vector register both are 64(VSR). So there should be 2 kinds of register class when vsx is enabled,
and 3 kinds of register class when VSX is NOT enabled.
It runs on POWER target, it makes big(+~30%) performance improvement in one specific bmk(503.bwaves_r) of spec2017 and no other obvious degressions.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67148
llvm-svn: 374017
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
VSX has instructions lxsiwax/lxsdx that can load 32/64 bit value into VSX register cheaply. That patch makes it known to memory cost model, so the vectorization of the test case in pr30990 is beneficial.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26713
llvm-svn: 288560
This patch ensures that we actually scalarize instructions marked scalar after
vectorization. Previously, such instructions may have been vectorized instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23889
llvm-svn: 282418
For instructions in uniform set, they will not have vector versions so
add them to VecValuesToIgnore.
For induction vars, those only used in uniform instructions or consecutive
ptrs instructions have already been added to VecValuesToIgnore above. For
those induction vars which are only used in uniform instructions or
non-consecutive/non-gather scatter ptr instructions, the related phi and
update will also be added into VecValuesToIgnore set.
The change will make the vector RegUsages estimation less conservative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20474
The recommit fixed the testcase global_alias.ll.
llvm-svn: 275936
For instructions in uniform set, they will not have vector versions so
add them to VecValuesToIgnore.
For induction vars, those only used in uniform instructions or consecutive
ptrs instructions have already been added to VecValuesToIgnore above. For
those induction vars which are only used in uniform instructions or
non-consecutive/non-gather scatter ptr instructions, the related phi and
update will also be added into VecValuesToIgnore set.
The change will make the vector RegUsages estimation less conservative.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D20474
llvm-svn: 275912
scalarizePHI only looked for phis that have exactly two uses - the "latch"
use, and an extract. Unfortunately, we can not assume all equivalent extracts
are CSE'd, since InstCombine itself may create an extract which is a duplicate
of an existing one. This extends it to handle several distinct extracts from
the same index.
This should fix at least some of the performance regressions from PR27988.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20983
llvm-svn: 271961
Previously, whenever we needed a vector IV, we would create it on the fly,
by splatting the scalar IV and adding a step vector. Instead, we can create a
real vector IV. This tends to save a couple of instructions per iteration.
This only changes the behavior for the most basic case - integer primary
IVs with a constant step.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20315
llvm-svn: 271410
This change prevents the loop vectorizer from vectorizing when all of the vector
types it generates will be scalarized. I've run into this problem on the PPC's QPX
vector ISA, which only holds floating-point vector types. The loop vectorizer
will, however, happily vectorize loops with purely integer computation. Here's
an example:
LV: The Smallest and Widest types: 32 / 32 bits.
LV: The Widest register is: 256 bits.
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 1 For instruction: %indvars.iv25 = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvars.iv.next26, %for.body ]
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 1 For instruction: %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [1600 x i32], [1600 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv25
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 1 For instruction: %2 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv25 to i32
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 1 For instruction: store i32 %2, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 1 For instruction: %indvars.iv.next26 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv25, 1
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 1 For instruction: %exitcond27 = icmp eq i64 %indvars.iv.next26, 1600
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 1 For instruction: br i1 %exitcond27, label %for.cond.cleanup, label %for.body
LV: Scalar loop costs: 3.
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 2 For instruction: %indvars.iv25 = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvars.iv.next26, %for.body ]
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 2 For instruction: %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [1600 x i32], [1600 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv25
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 2 For instruction: %2 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv25 to i32
LV: Found an estimated cost of 2 for VF 2 For instruction: store i32 %2, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 2 For instruction: %indvars.iv.next26 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv25, 1
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 2 For instruction: %exitcond27 = icmp eq i64 %indvars.iv.next26, 1600
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 2 For instruction: br i1 %exitcond27, label %for.cond.cleanup, label %for.body
LV: Vector loop of width 2 costs: 2.
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 4 For instruction: %indvars.iv25 = phi i64 [ 0, %entry ], [ %indvars.iv.next26, %for.body ]
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 4 For instruction: %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [1600 x i32], [1600 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv25
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 4 For instruction: %2 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv25 to i32
LV: Found an estimated cost of 4 for VF 4 For instruction: store i32 %2, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 4 For instruction: %indvars.iv.next26 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv25, 1
LV: Found an estimated cost of 1 for VF 4 For instruction: %exitcond27 = icmp eq i64 %indvars.iv.next26, 1600
LV: Found an estimated cost of 0 for VF 4 For instruction: br i1 %exitcond27, label %for.cond.cleanup, label %for.body
LV: Vector loop of width 4 costs: 1.
...
LV: Selecting VF: 8.
LV: The target has 32 registers
LV(REG): Calculating max register usage:
LV(REG): At #0 Interval # 0
LV(REG): At #1 Interval # 1
LV(REG): At #2 Interval # 2
LV(REG): At #4 Interval # 1
LV(REG): At #5 Interval # 1
LV(REG): VF = 8
The problem is that the cost model here is not wrong, exactly. Since all of
these operations are scalarized, their cost (aside from the uniform ones) are
indeed VF*(scalar cost), just as the model suggests. In fact, the larger the VF
picked, the lower the relative overhead from the loop itself (and the
induction-variable update and check), and so in a sense, picking the largest VF
here is the right thing to do.
The problem is that vectorizing like this, where all of the vectors will be
scalarized in the backend, isn't really vectorizing, but rather interleaving.
By itself, this would be okay, but then the vectorizer itself also interleaves,
and that's where the problem manifests itself. There's aren't actually enough
scalar registers to support the normal interleave factor multiplied by a factor
of VF (8 in this example). In other words, the problem with this is that our
register-pressure heuristic does not account for scalarization.
While we might want to improve our register-pressure heuristic, I don't think
this is the right motivating case for that work. Here we have a more-basic
problem: The job of the vectorizer is to vectorize things (interleaving aside),
and if the IR it generates won't generate any actual vector code, then
something is wrong. Thus, if every type looks like it will be scalarized (i.e.
will be split into VF or more parts), then don't consider that VF.
This is not a problem specific to PPC/QPX, however. The problem comes up under
SSE on x86 too, and as such, this change fixes PR26837 too. I've added Sanjay's
reduced test case from PR26837 to this commit.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18537
llvm-svn: 264904
Summary:
If we don't have the first and last access of an interleaved load group,
the first and last wide load in the loop can do an out of bounds
access. Even though we discard results from speculative loads,
this can cause problems, since it can technically generate page faults
(or worse).
We now discard interleaved load groups that don't have the first and
load in the group.
Reviewers: hfinkel, rengolin
Subscribers: rengolin, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin, anemet
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17332
llvm-svn: 261331
This adds a basic cost model for interleaved-access vectorization (and a better
default for shuffles), and enables interleaved-access vectorization by default.
The relevant difference from the default cost model for interleaved-access
vectorization, is that on PPC, the shuffles that end up being used are *much*
cheaper than modeling the process with insert/extract pairs (which are
quite expensive, especially on older cores).
llvm-svn: 246824
On the A2, with an eye toward QPX unaligned-load merging, we should always use
aggressive interleaving. It is generally superior to only using concatenation
unrolling.
llvm-svn: 246819
Florian Hahn