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
Review feedback from r328165. Split out just the one function from the
file that's used by Analysis. (As chandlerc pointed out, the original
change only moved the header and not the implementation anyway - which
was fine for the one function that was used (since it's a
template/inlined in the header) but not in general)
llvm-svn: 333954
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
So that it can be shared with other passes that may end up doing the same
thing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45874
llvm-svn: 332450
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
Current logic of loop SCEV invalidation in Loop Unroller implicitly relies on
fact that exit count of outer loops cannot rely on exiting blocks of
inner loops, which is true in current implementation of backedge taken count
calculation but is wrong in general. As result, when we only forget the loop that
we have just unrolled, we may still have cached data for its outer loops (in particular,
exit counts) which keeps references on blocks of inner loop that could have been
changed or even deleted.
The attached test demonstrates a situaton when after unrolling of innermost loop
the outermost loop contains a dangling pointer on non-existant block. The problem
shows up when we apply patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D44677 that makes SCEV
smarter about exit count calculation. I am not sure if the bug exists without this patch,
it appears that now it is accidentally correct just because in practice exact backedge
taken count for outer loops with complex control flow inside is never calculated.
But when SCEV learns to do so, this problem shows up.
This patch replaces existing logic of SCEV loop invalidation with a correct one, which
happens to be invalidation of outermost loop (which also leads to invalidation of all
loops inside of it). It is the only way to ensure that no outer loop keeps dangling pointers
on removed blocks, or just outdated information that has changed after unrolling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44818
Reviewed By: samparker
llvm-svn: 328483
Loop peeling also has an impact on the induction variables, so we should
benefit from induction variable simplification after peeling too.
Reviewers: sanjoy, bogner, mzolotukhin, efriedma
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43878
llvm-svn: 328301
Remove #include of Transforms/Scalar.h from Transform/Utils to fix layering.
Transforms depends on Transforms/Utils, not the other way around. So
remove the header and the "createStripGCRelocatesPass" function
declaration (& definition) that is unused and motivated this dependency.
Move Transforms/Utils/Local.h into Analysis because it's used by
Analysis/MemoryBuiltins.cpp.
llvm-svn: 328165
Removes verifyDomTree, using assert(verify()) everywhere instead, and
changes verify a little to always run IsSameAsFreshTree first in order
to print good output when we find errors. Also adds verifyAnalysis for
PostDomTrees, which will allow checking of PostDomTrees it the same way
we check DomTrees and MachineDomTrees.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41298
llvm-svn: 326315
The optimisation remarks for loop unrolling with an unrolled remainder looks something like:
test.c:7:18: remark: completely unrolled loop with 3 iterations [-Rpass=loop-unroll]
C[i] += A[i*N+j];
^
test.c:6:9: remark: unrolled loop by a factor of 4 with run-time trip count [-Rpass=loop-unroll]
for(int j = 0; j < N; j++)
^
This removes the first of the two messages.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38725
llvm-svn: 316986
Summary: There are certain requirements for debug location of debug intrinsics, e.g. the scope of the DILocalVariable should be the same as the scope of its debug location. As a result, we should not add discriminator encoding for debug intrinsics.
Reviewers: dblaikie, aprantl
Reviewed By: aprantl
Subscribers: JDevlieghere, aprantl, bjope, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39343
llvm-svn: 316703
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
Summary:
See comment for why I think this is a good idea.
This change also:
- Removes an SCEV test case. The SCEV test was not testing anything useful (most of it was `#if 0` ed out) and it would need to be updated to deal with a private ~Loop::Loop.
- Updates the loop pass manager test case to deal with a private ~Loop::Loop.
- Renames markAsRemoved to markAsErased to contrast with removeLoop, via the usual remove vs. erase idiom we already have for instructions and basic blocks.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37996
llvm-svn: 313695
In the lambda we are now returning the remark by value so we need to preserve
its type in the insertion operator. This requires making the insertion
operator generic.
I've also converted a few cases to use the new API. It seems to work pretty
well. See the LoopUnroller for a slightly more interesting case.
llvm-svn: 313691
When peeling kicks in, it updates the loop preheader.
Later, a successful full unroll of the loop needs to update a PHI
which i-th argument comes from the loop preheader, so it'd better look
at the correct block. Fixes PR33437.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37153
llvm-svn: 311922
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
I did this a long time ago with a janky python script, but now
clang-format has built-in support for this. I fed clang-format every
line with a #include and let it re-sort things according to the precise
LLVM rules for include ordering baked into clang-format these days.
I've reverted a number of files where the results of sorting includes
isn't healthy. Either places where we have legacy code relying on
particular include ordering (where possible, I'll fix these separately)
or where we have particular formatting around #include lines that
I didn't want to disturb in this patch.
This patch is *entirely* mechanical. If you get merge conflicts or
anything, just ignore the changes in this patch and run clang-format
over your #include lines in the files.
Sorry for any noise here, but it is important to keep these things
stable. I was seeing an increasing number of patches with irrelevant
re-ordering of #include lines because clang-format was used. This patch
at least isolates that churn, makes it easy to skip when resolving
conflicts, and gets us to a clean baseline (again).
llvm-svn: 304787
Commits were:
"Use WeakVH instead of WeakTrackingVH in AliasSetTracker's UnkownInsts"
"Add a new WeakVH value handle; NFC"
"Rename WeakVH to WeakTrackingVH; NFC"
The changes assumed pointers are 8 byte aligned on all architectures.
llvm-svn: 301429
Summary:
I plan to use WeakVH to mean "nulls itself out on deletion, but does
not track RAUW" in a subsequent commit.
Reviewers: dblaikie, davide
Reviewed By: davide
Subscribers: arsenm, mehdi_amini, mcrosier, mzolotukhin, jfb, llvm-commits, nhaehnle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32266
llvm-svn: 301424
The current Loop Unroll implementation works with loops having a
single latch that contains a conditional branch to a block outside
the loop (the other successor is, by defition of latch, the header).
If this precondition doesn't hold, avoid unrolling the loop as
the code is not ready to handle such circumstances.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32261
llvm-svn: 301239
Summary:
This patch starts the implementation as discuss in the following RFC: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106532.html
When optimization duplicates code that will scale down the execution count of a basic block, we will record the duplication factor as part of discriminator so that the offline process tool can find the duplication factor and collect the accurate execution frequency of the corresponding source code. Two important optimization that fall into this category is loop vectorization and loop unroll. This patch records the duplication factor for these 2 optimizations.
The recording will be guarded by a flag encode-duplication-in-discriminators, which is off by default.
Reviewers: probinson, aprantl, davidxl, hfinkel, echristo
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, anemet, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26420
llvm-svn: 294782
Summary:
I have a similar patch up for review already (D29173). If you prefer I
can squash them both together.
Also I think there more potential for code sharing between
LoopUnroll.cpp and LoopUnrollRuntime.cpp. Do you think patches for
that would be worthwhile?
Reviewers: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Reviewed By: mkuper, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29311
llvm-svn: 293758
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
Running non-LCSSA-preserving LoopSimplify followed by LCSSA on (roughly) the
same loop is incorrect, since LoopSimplify may break LCSSA arbitrarily higher
in the loop nest. Instead, run LCSSA first, and then run LCSSA-preserving
LoopSimplify on the result.
This fixes PR31718.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29055
llvm-svn: 292854
the library routine shared with the new PM and other code.
This assert checks that when LCSSA preservation is requested we start in
LCSSA form. Without this early assert, given *very* complex test cases
we can hit an assert or crash much later on when trying to preserve
LCSSA.
The new PM's loop simplify doesn't need to (and indeed can't) preserve
LCSSA as the new PM doesn't deal in transforms in the dependency graph.
But we asked the library to and shockingly, this didn't work very well!
Stop doing that. Now the assert will tell us immediately with existing
test cases. Before this, it took a pretty convoluted input to trigger
this.
However, sinking the assert also found a bug in LoopUnroll where we
asked simplifyLoop to preserve LCSSA *right before we reform it*. That's
kinda silly and unsurprising that it wasn't available. =D Stop doing
that too.
We also would assert that the unrolled loop was in LCSSA even if
preserving LCSSA was never requested! I don't have a test case or
anything here. I spotted it by inspection and it seems quite obvious. No
logic change anyways, that's just avoiding a spurrious assert.
llvm-svn: 292710
Mostly straightforward changes; we just didn't do the computation before.
One sort of interesting change in LoopUnroll.cpp: we weren't handling
dominance for children of the loop latch correctly, but
foldBlockIntoPredecessor hid the problem for complete unrolling.
Currently punting on loop peeling; made some minor changes to isolate
that problem to LoopUnrollPeel.cpp.
Adds a flag -unroll-verify-domtree; it verifies the domtree immediately
after we finish updating it. This is on by default for +Asserts builds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28073
llvm-svn: 292447
Move the code to update LoopInfo for cloned basic blocks to
addClonedBlockToLoopInfo, as suggested in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28482.
llvm-svn: 291614
Make it clear that TripCount is the upper bound of the iteration on which
control exits LatchBlock.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26675
llvm-svn: 290199
After r289755, the AssumptionCache is no longer needed. Variables affected by
assumptions are now found by using the new operand-bundle-based scheme. This
new scheme is more computationally efficient, and also we need much less
code...
llvm-svn: 289756
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
llvm-svn: 288274
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
David Green