Commit Graph

17 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Eric Christopher cee313d288 Revert "Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass.""
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.

Will be re-reverting again.

llvm-svn: 358552
2019-04-17 04:52:47 +00:00
Eric Christopher a863435128 Temporarily Revert "Add basic loop fusion pass."
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).

This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.

llvm-svn: 358546
2019-04-17 02:12:23 +00:00
Hiroshi Yamauchi 09e539fcae [PGO] Profile guided code size optimization.
Summary:
Enable some of the existing size optimizations for cold code under PGO.

A ~5% code size saving in big internal app under PGO.

The way it gets BFI/PSI is discussed in the RFC thread

http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-March/130894.html 

Note it doesn't currently touch loop passes.

Reviewers: davidxl, eraman

Reviewed By: eraman

Subscribers: mgorny, javed.absar, smeenai, mehdi_amini, eraman, zzheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59514

llvm-svn: 358422
2019-04-15 16:49:00 +00:00
Chandler Carruth baabda9317 [PM] Port LoopLoadElimination to the new pass manager and wire it into
the main pipeline.

This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.

This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.

llvm-svn: 293249
2017-01-27 01:32:26 +00:00
Mehdi Amini 27d224fbbb Fix LoopLoadElimination to keep original alignment on the inital hoisted store
This is fixing a bug where Loop Vectorization is widening a load but
with a lower alignment. Hoisting the load without propagating the alignment
will allow inst-combine to later deduce a higher alignment that what the pointer
actually is.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28408

llvm-svn: 291281
2017-01-06 21:06:51 +00:00
Adam Nemet bd861acf29 [LLE] Don't hoist conditionally executed loads
If the load is conditional we can't hoist its 0-iteration instance to
the preheader because that would make it unconditional.  Thus we would
access a memory location that the original loop did not access.

llvm-svn: 273991
2016-06-28 04:02:47 +00:00
Adam Nemet a9f09c6245 [LAA] Enable symbolic stride speculation for all LAA clients
This is a functional change for LLE and LDist.  The other clients (LV,
LVerLICM) already had this explicitly enabled.

The temporary boolean parameter to LAA is removed that allowed turning
off speculation of symbolic strides.  This makes LAA's caching interface
LAA::getInfo only take the loop as the parameter.  This makes the
interface more friendly to the new Pass Manager.

The flag -enable-mem-access-versioning is moved from LV to a LAA which
now allows turning off speculation globally.

llvm-svn: 273064
2016-06-17 22:35:41 +00:00
Adam Nemet e7709d92ba [LLE] Don't hard-code the name of the preheader in test
Turns out a didn't get this right because symbolic stride versioning
changes the name.  Relax the matching.

llvm-svn: 272992
2016-06-17 09:13:15 +00:00
Adam Nemet 776346848a [LLE] New test to check that no versioning for symbolic strides occurs. NFC
This is currently only performed in the Vectorizer.  I will change this
as symbolic stride collection is moved to LAA.

This test will track when the actual functional change occurs.

llvm-svn: 272918
2016-06-16 16:45:29 +00:00
Adam Nemet 7aba60c853 [LLE] Check for mismatching types between the store and the load earlier
isDependenceDistanceOfOne asserts that the store and the load access
through the same type.  This function is also used by
removeDependencesFromMultipleStores so we need to make sure we filter
out mismatching types before reaching this point.

Now we do this when the initial candidates are gathered.

This is a refinement of the fix made in r262267.

Fixes PR27048.

llvm-svn: 264313
2016-03-24 17:59:26 +00:00
Adam Nemet efb234135c [LLE] Add missed LoopSimplify dependence
The code assumed that we always had a preheader without making the pass
dependent on LoopSimplify.

Thanks to Mattias Eriksson V for reporting this.

llvm-svn: 263173
2016-03-10 23:54:39 +00:00
Adam Nemet 660748ca8c [LLE] Add missing check for unit stride
I somehow missed this.  The case in GCC (global_alloc) was similar to
the new testcase except it had an array of structs rather than a two
dimensional array.

Fixes RP26885.

llvm-svn: 263058
2016-03-09 20:47:55 +00:00
Adam Nemet 948775196d [LLE] Add testcase for the fix in r262267
llvm-svn: 262280
2016-03-01 00:50:14 +00:00
Adam Nemet 9455c1d2b1 [LoopLoadElim] Don't allow versioning when optForSize
This was requested in the review of D16300.

llvm-svn: 259861
2016-02-05 01:14:05 +00:00
Adam Nemet 0cf866ac6c Fix typo in comment
llvm-svn: 259860
2016-02-05 01:14:00 +00:00
Silviu Baranga 2910a4f6b1 Allow LLE/LD and the loop versioning infrastructure to use SCEV predicates
Summary:
LAA currently generates a set of SCEV predicates that must be checked by users.
In the case of Loop Distribute/Loop Load Elimination, no such predicates could have
been emitted, since we don't allow stride versioning. However, in the future there
could be SCEV predicates that will need to be checked.

This change adds support for SCEV predicate versioning in the Loop Distribute, Loop
Load Eliminate and the loop versioning infrastructure.

Reviewers: anemet

Subscribers: mssimpso, sanjoy, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14240

llvm-svn: 252467
2015-11-09 13:26:09 +00:00
Adam Nemet e54a4fa95d LLE 6/6: Add LoopLoadElimination pass
Summary:
The goal of this pass is to perform store-to-load forwarding across the
backedge of a loop.  E.g.:

  for (i)
     A[i + 1] = A[i] + B[i]

  =>

  T = A[0]
  for (i)
     T = T + B[i]
     A[i + 1] = T

The pass relies on loop dependence analysis via LoopAccessAnalisys to
find opportunities of loop-carried dependences with a distance of one
between a store and a load.  Since it's using LoopAccessAnalysis, it was
easy to also add support for versioning away may-aliasing intervening
stores that would otherwise prevent this transformation.

This optimization is also performed by Load-PRE in GVN without the
option of multi-versioning.  As was discussed with Daniel Berlin in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9548, this is inferior to a more loop-aware
solution applied here.  Hopefully, we will be able to remove some
complexity from GVN/MemorySSA as a consequence.

In the long run, we may want to extend this pass (or create a new one if
there is little overlap) to also eliminate loop-indepedent redundant
loads and store that *require* versioning due to may-aliasing
intervening stores/loads.  I have some motivating cases for store
elimination. My plan right now is to wait for MemorySSA to come online
first rather than using memdep for this.

The main motiviation for this pass is the 456.hmmer loop in SPECint2006
where after distributing the original loop and vectorizing the top part,
we are left with the critical path exposed in the bottom loop.  Being
able to promote the memory dependence into a register depedence (even
though the HW does perform store-to-load fowarding as well) results in a
major gain (~20%).  This gain also transfers over to x86: it's
around 8-10%.

Right now the pass is off by default and can be enabled
with -enable-loop-load-elim.  On the LNT testsuite, there are two
performance changes (negative number -> improvement):

  1. -28% in Polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/dynprog: the length of the
     critical paths is reduced
  2. +2% in Polybench/stencils/adi: Unfortunately, I couldn't reproduce this
     outside of LNT

The pass is scheduled after the loop vectorizer (which is after loop
distribution).  The rational is to try to reuse LAA state, rather than
recomputing it.  The order between LV and LLE is not critical because
normally LV does not touch scalar st->ld forwarding cases where
vectorizing would inhibit the CPU's st->ld forwarding to kick in.

LoopLoadElimination requires LAA to provide the full set of dependences
(including forward dependences).  LAA is known to omit loop-independent
dependences in certain situations.  The big comment before
removeDependencesFromMultipleStores explains why this should not occur
for the cases that we're interested in.

Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel

Subscribers: junbuml, dberlin, mssimpso, rengolin, sanjoy, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13259

llvm-svn: 252017
2015-11-03 23:50:08 +00:00