Summary: The following code from
/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopUnrollAndJam.cpp can be used by other
transformations:
while (!MergeBlocks.empty()) {
BasicBlock *BB = *MergeBlocks.begin();
BranchInst *Term = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(BB->getTerminator());
if (Term && Term->isUnconditional() &&
L->contains(Term->getSuccessor(0))) {
BasicBlock *Dest = Term->getSuccessor(0);
BasicBlock *Fold = Dest->getUniquePredecessor();
if (MergeBlockIntoPredecessor(Dest, &DTU, LI)) {
// Don't remove BB and add Fold as they are the same BB
assert(Fold == BB);
(void)Fold;
MergeBlocks.erase(Dest);
} else
MergeBlocks.erase(BB);
} else
MergeBlocks.erase(BB);
}
Hence it should be separated into its own utility function.
Authored By: sidbav
Reviewer: Whitney, Meinersbur, asbirlea, dmgreen, etiotto
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80583
This makes sure to correctly register the loop info of the children
of unroll and jammed loops. It re-uses some code from the unroller for
registering subloops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80619
loop nest.
Summary: As discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D73129.
Example
Before unroll and jam:
for
A
for
B
for
C
D
E
After unroll and jam (currently):
for
A
A'
for
B
for
C
D
B'
for
C'
D'
E
E'
After unroll and jam (Ideal):
for
A
A'
for
B
B'
for
C
C'
D
D'
E
E'
This is the first patch to change unroll and jam to work in the ideal
way.
This patch change the safety checks needed to make sure is safe to
unroll and jam in the ideal way.
Reviewer: dmgreen, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, kbarton, bmahjour, etiotto
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Subscribers: fhahn, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, anhtuyen, prithayan
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76132
Summary:
Future patches will make use of TTI to perform cost-model-driven `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()`
This is a fully NFC patch to make things reviewable.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73704
Summary:
LoopUnroll can reuse the RemapInstruction() in ValueMapper, or
remapInstructionsInBlocks() in CloneFunction, depending on the needs.
There is no need to have its own version in LoopUnroll.
By calling RemapInstruction() without TypeMapper or Materializer and
with Flags (RF_NoModuleLevelChanges | RF_IgnoreMissingLocals), it does
the same as remapInstruction(). remapInstructionsInBlocks() calls
RemapInstruction() exactly as described.
Looking at the history, I cannot find any obvious reason to have its own
version.
Reviewer: dmgreen, jdoerfert, Meinersbur, kbarton, bmahjour, etiotto,
foad, aprantl
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, prithayan, anhtuyen
Tag: LLVM
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73277
We can also apply the earlier updates to the lazy DTU, instead of
applying them directly.
Reviewers: kuhar, brzycki, asbirlea, SjoerdMeijer
Reviewed By: brzycki, asbirlea, SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66918
llvm-svn: 370391
Summary:
Following the cleanup in D48202, method foldBlockIntoPredecessor has the
same behavior. Replace its uses with MergeBlockIntoPredecessor.
Remove foldBlockIntoPredecessor.
Reviewers: chandlerc, dmgreen
Subscribers: jlebar, javed.absar, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62751
llvm-svn: 362538
Summary:
Create a method to forget everything in SCEV.
Add a cl::opt and PassManagerBuilder option to use this in LoopUnroll.
Motivation: Certain Halide applications spend a very long time compiling in forgetLoop, and prefer to forget everything and rebuild SCEV from scratch.
Sample difference in compile time reduction: 21.04 to 14.78 using current ToT release build.
Testcase showcasing this cannot be opensourced and is fairly large.
The option disabled by default, but it may be desirable to enable by
default. Evidence in favor (two difference runs on different days/ToT state):
File Before (s) After (s)
clang-9.bc 7267.91 6639.14
llvm-as.bc 194.12 194.12
llvm-dis.bc 62.50 62.50
opt.bc 1855.85 1857.53
File Before (s) After (s)
clang-9.bc 8588.70 7812.83
llvm-as.bc 196.20 194.78
llvm-dis.bc 61.55 61.97
opt.bc 1739.78 1886.26
Reviewers: sanjoy
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, jlebar, zzheng, javed.absar, dmgreen, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60144
llvm-svn: 358304
Summary:
Renamed setBaseDiscriminator to cloneWithBaseDiscriminator, to match
similar APIs. Also changed its behavior to copy over the other
discriminator components, instead of eliding them.
Renamed cloneWithDuplicationFactor to
cloneByMultiplyingDuplicationFactor, which more closely matches what
this API does.
Reviewers: dblaikie, wmi
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56220
llvm-svn: 351996
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary:
Added a pair of APIs for encoding/decoding the 3 components of a DWARF discriminator described in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/106532.html: the base discriminator, the duplication factor (useful in profile-guided optimization) and the copy index (used to identify copies of code in cases like loop unrolling)
The encoding packs 3 unsigned values in 32 bits. This CL addresses 2 issues:
- communicates overflow back to the user
- supports encoding all 3 components together. Current APIs assume a sequencing of events. For example, creating a new discriminator based on an existing one by changing the base discriminator was not supported.
Reviewers: davidxl, danielcdh, wmi, dblaikie
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Subscribers: zzheng, dmgreen, aprantl, JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55681
llvm-svn: 349973
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
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
Pulled out a separate function for some code that calculates
if an inner loop iteration count is invariant to it's outer
loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50063
llvm-svn: 339500
Adds some cleaned up debug messages from back when I was writing this.
Hopefully useful to others (and myself) as to why unroll and jam is not
transforming as expected.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50062
llvm-svn: 338676
Create a processHeaderPhiOperands for analysing the instructions
in the aft blocks that must be moved before the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49061
llvm-svn: 338033
We no longer care about the order of blocks in these collections,
so can change to SmallPtrSets, making contains checks quicker.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49060
llvm-svn: 336897
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
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
Whitney Tsang