When using clang with `-fno-unroll-loops` (implicitly added with `-O1`),
the LoopUnrollPass is not not added to the (legacy) pass pipeline. This
also means that it will not process any loop metadata such as
llvm.loop.unroll.enable (which is generated by #pragma unroll or
WarnMissedTransformationsPass emits a warning that a forced
transformation has not been applied (see
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20181210/610833.html).
Such explicit transformations should take precedence over disabling
heuristics.
This patch unconditionally adds LoopUnrollPass to the optimizing
pipeline (that is, it is still not added with `-O0`), but passes a flag
indicating whether automatic unrolling is dis-/enabled. This is the same
approach as LoopVectorize uses.
The new pass manager's pipeline builder has no option to disable
unrolling, hence the problem does not apply.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55716
llvm-svn: 349509
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
Unlike its legacy counterpart new pass manager's LoopUnrollPass does
not provide any means to select which flavors of unroll to run
(runtime, peeling, partial), relying on global defaults.
In some cases having ability to run a restricted LoopUnroll that
does more than LoopFullUnroll is needed.
Introduced LoopUnrollOptions to select optional unroll behaviors.
Added 'unroll<peeling>' to PassRegistry mainly for the sake of testing.
Reviewers: chandlerc, tejohnson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53440
llvm-svn: 345723
by `getTerminator()` calls instead be declared as `Instruction`.
This is the biggest remaining chunk of the usage of `getTerminator()`
that insists on the narrow type and so is an easy batch of updates.
Several files saw more extensive updates where this would cascade to
requiring API updates within the file to use `Instruction` instead of
`TerminatorInst`. All of these were trivial in nature (pervasively using
`Instruction` instead just worked).
llvm-svn: 344502
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
I'm not sure why the code here is skipping calls since
TTI does try to do something for general calls, but it
at least should allow intrinsics.
Skip intrinsics that should not be omitted as calls, which
is by far the most common case on AMDGPU.
llvm-svn: 335645
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.
In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624
llvm-svn: 332240
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
For Hexagon, peeling loops with small runtime trip count is beneficial for our
benchmarks. We set PeelCount in HexagonTargetInfo.cpp and we use PeelCount set
by the target for computing the desired peel count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44880
llvm-svn: 329042
If the loop body contains conditions of the form IndVar < #constant, we
can remove the checks by peeling off #constant iterations.
This improves codegen for PR34364.
Reviewers: mkuper, mkazantsev, efriedma
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43876
llvm-svn: 327671
Summary:
Before this patch call graph is like this in the LoopUnrollPass:
tryToUnrollLoop
ApproximateLoopSize
collectEphemeralValues
/* Use collected ephemeral values */
computeUnrollCount
analyzeLoopUnrollCost
/* Bail out from the analysis if loop contains CallInst */
This patch moves collection of the ephemeral values to the tryToUnrollLoop
function and passes the collected values into both ApproximateLoopsize (as
before) and additionally starts using them in analyzeLoopUnrollCost:
tryToUnrollLoop
collectEphemeralValues
ApproximateLoopSize(EphValues)
/* Use EphValues */
computeUnrollCount(EphValues)
analyzeLoopUnrollCost(EphValues)
/* Ignore ephemeral values - they don't contribute to the final cost */
/* Bail out from the analysis if loop contains CallInst */
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, evstupac, sanjoy
Reviewed By: evstupac
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43931
llvm-svn: 327617
Currently when AllowRemainder is disabled, pragma unroll count is not
respected even though there is no remainder. This bug causes a loop
fully unrolled in many cases even though the user specifies a unroll
count. Especially it affects OpenCL/CUDA since in many cases a loop
contains convergent instructions and currently AllowRemainder is
disabled for such loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43826
llvm-svn: 326585
Summary:
This replaces calls to getEntryCount().hasValue() with hasProfileData
that does the same thing. This refactoring is useful to do before adding
synthetic function entry counts but also a useful cleanup IMO even
otherwise. I have used hasProfileData instead of hasRealProfileData as
David had earlier suggested since I think profile implies "real" and I
use the phrase "synthetic entry count" and not "synthetic profile count"
but I am fine calling it hasRealProfileData if you prefer.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41461
llvm-svn: 321331
This avoid code duplication and allow us to add the disable unroll metadata elsewhere.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38928
llvm-svn: 315850
parameterized emit() calls
Summary: This is not functional change to adopt new emit() API added in r313691.
Reviewed By: anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38285
llvm-svn: 315476
Summary:
And now that we no longer have to explicitly free() the Loop instances, we can
(with more ease) use the destructor of LoopBase to do what LoopBase::clear() was
doing.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38201
llvm-svn: 314375
Summary:
With this change:
- Methods in LoopBase trip an assert if the receiver has been invalidated
- LoopBase::clear frees up the memory held the LoopBase instance
This change also shuffles things around as necessary to work with this stricter invariant.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38055
llvm-svn: 313708
On some targets, the penalty of executing runtime unrolling checks
and then not the unrolled loop can be significantly detrimental to
performance. This results in the need to be more conservative with
the unroll count, keeping a trip count of 2 reduces the overhead as
well as increasing the chance of the unrolled body being executed. But
being conservative leaves performance gains on the table.
This patch enables the unrolling of the remainder loop introduced by
runtime unrolling. This can help reduce the overhead of misunrolled
loops because the cost of non-taken branches is much less than the
cost of the backedge that would normally be executed in the remainder
loop. This allows larger unroll factors to be used without suffering
performance loses with smaller iteration counts.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36309
llvm-svn: 310824
results when a loop is completely removed.
This is very hard to manifest as a visible bug. You need to arrange for
there to be a subsequent allocation of a 'Loop' object which gets the
exact same address as the one which the unroll deleted, and you need the
LoopAccessAnalysis results to be significant in the way that they're
stale. And you need a million other things to align.
But when it does, you get a deeply mysterious crash due to actually
finding a stale analysis result. This fixes the issue and tests for it
by directly checking we successfully invalidate things. I have not been
able to get *any* test case to reliably trigger this. Changes to LLVM
itself caused the only test case I ever had to cease to crash.
I've looked pretty extensively at less brittle ways of fixing this and
they are actually very, very hard to do. This is a somewhat strange and
unusual case as we have a pass which is deleting an IR unit, but is not
running within that IR unit's pass framework (which is what handles this
cleanly for the normal loop unroll). And where there isn't a definitive
way to clear *all* of the stale cache entries. And where the pass *is*
updating the core analysis that provides the IR units!
For example, we don't have any of these problems with Function analyses
because it is easy to clear out function analyses when the functions
themselves may have been deleted -- we clear an entire module's worth!
But that is too heavy of a hammer down here in the LoopAnalysisManager
layer.
A better long-term solution IMO is to require that AnalysisManager's
make their keys durable to this kind of thing. Specifically, when
caching an analysis for one IR unit that is conceptually "owned" by
a higher level IR unit, the AnalysisManager should incorporate this into
its data structures so that we can reliably clear these results without
having to teach each and every pass to do so manually as we do here. But
that is a change for another day as it will be a fairly invasive change
to the AnalysisManager infrastructure. Until then, this fortunately
seems to be quite rare.
llvm-svn: 310333
Summary:
Detect when the working set size of a profiled application is huge,
by comparing the number of counts required to reach the hot percentile
in the profile summary to a large threshold*.
When the working set size is determined to be huge, disable peeling
to avoid bloating the working set further.
*Note that the selected threshold (15K) is significantly larger than the
largest working set value in SPEC cpu2006 (which is gcc at around 11K).
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36288
llvm-svn: 310005
Summary:
Peeling should not occur during the full unrolling invocation early
in the pipeline, but rather later with partial and runtime loop
unrolling. The later loop unrolling invocation will also eventually
utilize profile summary and branch frequency information, which
we would like to use to control peeling. And for ThinLTO we want
to delay peeling until the backend (post thin link) phase, just as
we do for most types of unrolling.
Ensure peeling doesn't occur during the full unrolling invocation
by adding a parameter to the shared implementation function, similar
to the way partial and runtime loop unrolling are disabled.
Performance results for ThinLTO suggest this has a neutral to positive
effect on some internal benchmarks.
Reviewers: chandlerc, davidxl
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36258
llvm-svn: 309966
Summary:
This is largely NFC*, in preparation for utilizing ProfileSummaryInfo
and BranchFrequencyInfo analyses. In this patch I am only doing the
splitting for the New PM, but I can do the same for the legacy PM as
a follow-on if this looks good.
*Not NFC since for partial unrolling we lose the updates done to the
loop traversal (adding new sibling and child loops) - according to
Chandler this is not very useful for partial unrolling, but it also
means that the debugging flag -unroll-revisit-child-loops no longer
works for partial unrolling.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, eraman, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36157
llvm-svn: 309886
and to expose a handle to represent the actual case rather than having
the iterator return a reference to itself.
All of this allows the iterator to be used with common STL facilities,
standard algorithms, etc.
Doing this exposed some missing facilities in the iterator facade that
I've fixed and required some work to the actual iterator to fully
support the necessary API.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31548
llvm-svn: 300032
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.
This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243
llvm-svn: 296897
This enables peeling of loops with low dynamic iteration count by default,
when profile information is available.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27734
llvm-svn: 295796
factory functions for the two modes the loop unroller is actually used
in in-tree: simplified full-unrolling and the entire thing including
partial unrolling.
I've also wired these up to nice names so you can express both of these
being in a pipeline easily. This is a precursor to actually enabling
these parts of the O2 pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28897
llvm-svn: 293136
Even when we don't create a remainder loop (that is, when we unroll by 2), we
may duplicate nested loops into the remainder. This is complicated by the fact
the remainder may itself be either inserted into an outer loop, or at the top
level. In the latter case, we may need to create new top-level loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29156
llvm-svn: 293124
loops.
We do this by reconstructing the newly added loops after the unroll
completes to avoid threading pass manager details through all the mess
of the unrolling infrastructure.
I've enabled some extra assertions in the LPM to try and catch issues
here and enabled a bunch of unroller tests to try and make sure this is
sane.
Currently, I'm manually running loop-simplify when needed. That should
go away once it is folded into the LPM infrastructure.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28848
llvm-svn: 293011
Summary: Partial unrolling should have separate threshold with full unrolling.
Reviewers: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Reviewed By: efriedma, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28831
llvm-svn: 292293
a function's CFG when that CFG is unchanged.
This allows transformation passes to simply claim they preserve the CFG
and analysis passes to check for the CFG being preserved to remove the
fanout of all analyses being listed in all passes.
I've gone through and removed or cleaned up as many of the comments
reminding us to do this as I could.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28627
llvm-svn: 292054
the latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
Michael Kruse