This patch tries to sink instructions when they are only used in a successor block.
This is a further enhancement patch based on Anna's commit:
D109700, which allows sinking an instruction having multiple uses in a single user.
In this patch, sink instructions with multiple users in a single successor block will be supported.
It could fix a known issue from rust:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51346#issuecomment-394443610
Reviewed By: nikic, reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121585
LICM will speculatively hoist code outside of loops. This requires removing information, like alias analysis (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53794), range information (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50550), among others. Prior to https://reviews.llvm.org/D99249 , LICM would only be run after LoopRotate. Running Loop Rotate prior to LICM prevents a instruction hoist from being speculative, if it was conditionally executed by the iteration (as is commonly emitted by clang and other frontends). Adding the additional LICM pass first, however, forces all of these instructions to be considered speculative, even if they are not speculative after LoopRotate. This destroys information, resulting in performance losses for discarding this additional information.
This PR modifies LICM to accept a ``speculative'' parameter which allows LICM to be set to perform information-loss speculative hoists or not. Phase ordering is then modified to not perform the information-losing speculative hoists until after loop rotate is performed, preserving this additional information.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119965
In D115311, we're looking to modify clang to emit i constraints rather
than X constraints for callbr's indirect destinations. Prior to doing
so, update all of the existing tests in llvm/ to match.
Reviewed By: void, jyknight
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115410
If we have an exit which is controlled by a loop invariant condition and which dominates the latch, we know only the copy in the first unrolled iteration can be taken. All other copies are dead.
The change itself is pretty straight forward, but let me add two points of context:
* I'd have expected other transform passes to catch this after unrolling, but I'm seeing multiple examples where we get to the end of O2/O3 without simplifying.
* I'd like to do a stronger change which did CSE during unroll and accounted for invariant expressions (as defined by SCEV instead of trivial ones from LoopInfo), but that doesn't fit cleanly into the current code structure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116496
Commit 150681f increases
cost of producing MMA types (vector pair and quad).
However, it increases the cost for getUserCost() which is
used in unrolling. As a result, loops that contain these
types already (from the user code) cannot be unrolled
(even with the user's unroll pragma). This was an unintended
sideeffect. Reverting that portion of the commit to allow
unrolling such loops.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115424
Both these preference helper functions have initial support with
this change. The loop unrolling preferences are set with initial
settings to control thresholds, size and attributes of loops to
unroll with some tuning done. The peeling preferences may need
some tuning as well as the initial support looks much like what
other architectures utilize.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113798
This change allows us to estimate trip count from profile metadata for all multiple exit loops. We still do the estimate only from the latch, but that's fine as it causes us to over estimate the trip count at worst.
Reviewing the uses of the API, all but one are cases where we restrict a loop transformation (unroll, and vectorize respectively) when we know the trip count is short enough. So, as a result, the change makes these passes strictly less aggressive. The test change illustrates a case where we'd previously have runtime unrolled a loop which ran fewer iterations than the unroll factor. This is definitely unprofitable.
The one case where an upper bound on estimate trip count could drive a more aggressive transform is peeling, and I duplicated the logic being removed from the generic estimation there to keep it the same. The resulting heuristic makes no sense and should probably be immediately removed, but we can do that in a separate change.
This was noticed when analyzing regressions on D113939.
I plan to come back and incorporate estimated trip counts from other exits, but that's a minor improvement which can follow separately.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115362
Both these preference helper functions have initial support with
this change. The loop unrolling preferences are set with initial
settings to control thresholds, size and attributes of loops to
unroll with some tuning done. The peeling preferences may need
some tuning as well as the initial support looks much like what
other architectures utilize.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113798
The basic problem we have is that we're trying to reuse an instruction which is mapped to some SCEV. Since we can have multiple such instructions (potentially with different flags), this is analogous to our need to drop flags when performing CSE. A trivial implementation would simply drop flags on any instruction we decided to reuse, and that would be correct.
This patch is almost that trivial patch except that we preserve flags on the reused instruction when existing users would imply UB on overflow already. Adding new users can, at most, refine this program to one which doesn't execute UB which is valid.
In practice, this fixes two conceptual problems with the previous code: 1) a binop could have been canonicalized into a form with different opcode or operands, or 2) the inbounds GEP case which was simply unhandled.
On the test changes, most are pretty straight forward. We loose some flags (in some cases, they'd have been dropped on the next CSE pass anyways). The one that took me the longest to understand was the ashr-expansion test. What's happening there is that we're considering reuse of the mul, previously we disallowed it entirely, now we allow it with no flags. The surrounding diffs are all effects of generating the same mul with a different operand order, and then doing simple DCE.
The loss of the inbounds is unfortunate, but even there, we can recover most of those once we actually treat branch-on-poison as immediate UB.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112734
There are multiple possible ways to represent the X - urem X, Y pattern. SCEV was not canonicalizing, and thus, depending on which you analyzed, you could get different results. The sub representation appears to produce strictly inferior results in practice, so I decided to canonicalize to the Y * X/Y version.
The motivation here is that runtime unroll produces the sub X - (and X, Y-1) pattern when Y is a power of two. SCEV is thus unable to recognize that an unrolled loop exits because we don't figure out that the new unrolled step evenly divides the trip count of the unrolled loop. After instcombine runs, we convert the the andn form which SCEV recognizes, so essentially, this is just fixing a nasty pass ordering dependency.
The ARM loop hardware interaction in the test diff is opague to me, but the comments in the review from others knowledge of the infrastructure appear to indicate these are improvements in loop recognition, not regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114018
This is one of those wonderful "in theory X doesn't matter, but in practice is does" changes. In this particular case, we shift the IVs inserted by the runtime unroller to clamp iteration count of the loops* from decrementing to incrementing.
Why does this matter? A couple of reasons:
* SCEV doesn't have a native subtract node. Instead, all subtracts (A - B) are represented as A + -1 * B and drops any flags invalidated by such. As a result, SCEV is slightly less good at reasoning about edge cases involving decrementing addrecs than incrementing ones. (You can see this in the inferred flags in some of the test cases.)
* Other parts of the optimizer produce incrementing IVs, and they're common in idiomatic source language. We do have support for reversing IVs, but in general if we produce one of each, the pair will persist surprisingly far through the optimizer before being coalesced. (You can see this looking at nearby phis in the test cases.)
Note that if the hardware prefers decrementing (i.e. zero tested) loops, LSR should convert back immediately before codegen.
* Mostly irrelevant detail: The main loop of the prolog case is handled independently and will simple use the original IV with a changed start value. We could in theory use this scheme for all iteration clamping, but that's a larger and more invasive change.
The unrolling code was previously inserting new cloned blocks at the end of the function. The result of this with typical loop structures is that the new iterations are placed far from the initial iteration.
With unrolling, the general assumption is that the a) the loop is reasonable hot, and b) the first Count-1 copies of the loop are rarely (if ever) loop exiting. As such, placing Count-1 copies out of line is a fairly poor code placement choice. We'd much rather fall through into the hot (non-exiting) path. For code with branch profiles, later layout would fix this, but this may have a positive impact on non-PGO compiled code.
However, the real motivation for this change isn't performance. Its readability and human understanding. Having to jump around long distances in an IR file to trace an unrolled loop structure is error prone and tedious.
Added support for peeling loops with exits that are followed either by an
unreachable-terminated block or block that has a terminatnig deoptimize call.
All blocks in the sequence must have an unique successor, maybe except
for the last one.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110922
This patch adds a new cost heuristic that allows peeling a single
iteration off read-only loops, if the loop contains a load that
1. is feeding an exit condition,
2. dominates the latch,
3. is not already known to be dereferenceable,
4. and has a loop invariant address.
If all non-latch exits are terminated with unreachable, such loads
in the loop are guaranteed to be dereferenceable after peeling,
enabling hoisting/CSE'ing them.
This enables vectorization of loops with certain runtime-checks, like
multiple calls to `std::vector::at` if the vector is passed as pointer.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108114
Removed obsolete DT verification that should not be there because the
strategy of DT updates has changed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110922
Added support for peeling loops with "deoptimizing" exits -
such exits that it or any of its children (or any of their
children, etc) either has a @llvm.experimental.deoptimize call
prior to the terminating return instruction of this basic block
or is terminated with unreachable. All blocks in the the
sequence must have a single successor, maybe except for the last
one.
Previously we only checked the exit block for being deoptimizing.
Now we check if the last reachable block from the exit is deoptimizing.
Patch by Dmitry Makogon!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110922
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
I can't seem to wrap my head around the proper fix here,
we should be fine without this requirement, iff we can form this form,
but the naive attempt (https://reviews.llvm.org/D106317) has failed.
So just to unblock the release, put up a restriction.
Fixes https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51125
This patch adds support for unrolling inner loops using epilogue unrolling. The basic issue is that the original latch exit block of the inner loop could be outside the outer loop. When we clone the inner loop and split the latch exit, the cloned blocks need to be in the outer loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108476
The runtime unroller will try to produce a non-loop if the unroll count is 2 and thus the prolog/epilog loop would only run at most one iteration. The old implementation did this by avoiding loop construction entirely. This patches instead constructs the trivial loop and then explicitly breaks the backedge and simplifies. This does result in some additional code churn when triggered, but a) results in better quality code and b) removes a codepath which didn't work properly for multiple exit epilogs.
One oddity that I want to draw to reviewer attention is that this somehow changes revisit order. The new order looks equivalent to me, but I don't understand how creating and erasing an extra loop here creates this effect.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108521
Support for peeling with multiple exit blocks was added in D63921/77bb3a486fa6.
So far it has only been enabled for loops where all non-latch exits are
'de-optimizing' exits (D63923). But peeling of multi-exit loops can be
highly beneficial in other cases too, like if all non-latch exiting
blocks are unreachable.
The motivating case are loops with runtime checks, like the C++ example
below. The main issue preventing vectorization is that the invariant
accesses to load the bounds of B is conditionally executed in the loop
and cannot be hoisted out. If we peel off the first iteration, they
become dereferenceable in the loop, because they must execute before the
loop is executed, as all non-latch exits are terminated with
unreachable. This subsequently allows hoisting the loads and runtime
checks out of the loop, allowing vectorization of the loop.
int sum(std::vector<int> *A, std::vector<int> *B, int N) {
int cost = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
cost += A->at(i) + B->at(i);
return cost;
}
This gives a ~20-30% increase of score for Geekbench5/HDR on AArch64.
Note that this requires a follow-up improvement to the peeling cost
model to actually peel iterations off loops as above. I will share that
shortly.
Also, peeling of multi-exits might be beneficial for exit blocks with
other terminators, but I would like to keep the scope limited to known
high-reward cases for now.
I removed the option to disable peeling for multi-deopt exits because
the code is more general now. Alternatively, the option could also be
generalized, but I am not sure if there's much value in the option?
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108108
This patch extends the runtime unrolling infrastructure to support unrolling a loop with multiple exiting blocks branching to the same exit block used by the latch. It intentionally does not include a cost model change to enable this functionality unless appropriate force flags are used.
This is the prolog companion to D107381. Since this was LGTMed, a problem with DT updating was reported against that patch. I roled in the analogous fix here as it seemed obvious, and not worth re-review.
As an aside, our prolog form leaves a lot of potential value on the floor when there is an invariant load or invariant condition in the loop being runtime unrolled. We should probably consider a "required prolog" heuristic. (Alternatively, maybe we should be peeling these cases more aggressively?)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108262
This patch extends the runtime unrolling infrastructure to support unrolling a loop with multiple exiting blocks branching to the same exit block used by the latch. It intentionally does not include a cost model change to enable this functionality unless appropriate force flags are used.
I decided to restrict this to the epilogue case. Given the changes ended up being pretty generic, we may be able to unblock the prolog case too, but I want to do that in a separate change to reduce the amount of code we all have to understand at one time.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107381
I'm not sure this is the best way to approach this,
but the situation is rather not very detectable unless we explicitly call it out when refusing to advise to unroll.
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107271
There was an alias between 'simplifycfg' and 'simplify-cfg' in the
PassRegistry. That was the original reason for this patch, which
effectively removes the alias.
This patch also replaces all occurrances of 'simplify-cfg'
by 'simplifycfg'. Reason for choosing that form for the name is
that it matches the DEBUG_TYPE for the pass, and the legacy PM name
and also how it is spelled out in other passes such as
'loop-simplifycfg', and in other options such as
'simplifycfg-merge-cond-stores'.
I for some reason the name should be changed to 'simplify-cfg' in
the future, then I think such a renaming should be more widely done
and not only impacting the PassRegistry.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105627
Based ontop of D104598, which is a NFCI-ish refactoring.
Here, a restriction, that only empty blocks can be merged, is lifted.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104597
v6m cores only have a limited number of registers available. Unrolling
can mean we spend more on stack spills and reloads than we save from the
unrolling. This patch adds an extra heuristic to put a limit on the
unroll count for loops with multiple live out values, as measured from
the LCSSA phi nodes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104659
Andrew Wei