Unswitching a loop on a non-trivial divergent branch is expensive
since it serializes the execution of both version of the
loop. But identifying a divergent branch needs divergence analysis,
which is a function level analysis.
The legacy pass manager handles this dependency by isolating such a
loop transform and rerunning the required function analyses. This
functionality is currently missing in the new pass manager, and there
is no safe way for the SimpleLoopUnswitch pass to depend on
DivergenceAnalysis. So we conservatively assume that all non-trivial
branches are divergent if the target has divergence.
Reviewed By: tra
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98958
If we determine that the invariant path through the loop has no effects,
we can directly branch to the exit block, instead to unswitching first.
Besides avoiding some extra work (unswitching first, then deleting the
loop again) this allows to be more aggressive than regular unswitching
with respect to cost-modeling. This approach should always be be
desirable.
This is similar in spirit to D93734, just that it uses the previously
added checks for loop-unswitching.
I tried to add the required no-op checks from scratch, as we only check
a subset of the loop. There is potential to unify the checks with
LoopDeletion, at the cost of adding a predicate whether a block should
be considered.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95468
This patch fixes updating MemorySSA if the header contains memory
defs that do not clobber a duplicated instruction. We need to find the
first defining access outside the loop body and use that as defining
access of the duplicated instruction.
This fixes a crash caused by bee486851c.
This patch adds additional checks to avoid partial unswitching
in cases where it won't be profitable, e.g. because the path directly
exits the loop anyways.
The existing code did not deal with atomic loads correctly. Such loads
are represented as MemoryDefs. Bail out on any MemoryAccess that is not
a MemoryUse.
This patch applies the idea from D93734 to LoopUnswitch.
It adds support for unswitching on conditions that are only
invariant along certain paths through a loop.
In particular, it targets conditions in the loop header that
depend on values loaded from memory. If either path from
the true or false successor through the loop does not modify
memory, perform partial loop unswitching.
That is, duplicate the instructions feeding the condition in the pre-header.
Then unswitch on the duplicated condition. The condition is now known
in the unswitched version for the 'invariant' path through the original loop.
On caveat of this approach is that one of the loops created can be partially
unswitched again. To avoid this behavior, `llvm.loop.unswitch.partial.disable`
metadata is added to the unswitched loops, to avoid subsequent partial
unswitching.
If that's the approach to go, I can move the code handling the metadata kind
into separate functions.
This increases the cases we unswitch quite a bit in SPEC2006/SPEC2000 &
MultiSource. It also allows us to eliminate a dead loop in SPEC2017's omnetpp
```
Tests: 236
Same hash: 170 (filtered out)
Remaining: 66
Metric: loop-unswitch.NumBranches
Program base patch diff
test-suite...000/255.vortex/255.vortex.test 2.00 23.00 1050.0%
test-suite...T2006/401.bzip2/401.bzip2.test 7.00 55.00 685.7%
test-suite :: External/Nurbs/nurbs.test 5.00 26.00 420.0%
test-suite...s-C/unix-smail/unix-smail.test 1.00 3.00 200.0%
test-suite.../Prolangs-C++/ocean/ocean.test 1.00 3.00 200.0%
test-suite...tions/lambda-0.1.3/lambda.test 1.00 3.00 200.0%
test-suite...yApps-C++/PENNANT/PENNANT.test 2.00 5.00 150.0%
test-suite...marks/Ptrdist/yacr2/yacr2.test 1.00 2.00 100.0%
test-suite...lications/viterbi/viterbi.test 1.00 2.00 100.0%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 12.00 24.00 100.0%
test-suite...CFP2006/433.milc/433.milc.test 14.00 27.00 92.9%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 7.00 12.00 71.4%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 6.00 10.00 66.7%
test-suite...T2006/473.astar/473.astar.test 16.00 26.00 62.5%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 78.00 121.00 55.1%
```
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93764
The loop-unswitch transform should not be performed on a loop whose
condition is divergent. For this to happen correctly, divergence
analysis must be available. The existing divergence analysis has not
been ported to the new pass manager yet. As a result, loop unswitching
on the new pass manager is currently unsafe on targets that care about
divergence.
This test is temporarily disabled to unblock work on the new pass
manager. The issue is now tracked in bug 48819.
Reviewed By: foad
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95051
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
This PR implements the function splitBasicBlockBefore to address an
issue
that occurred during SplitEdge(BB, Succ, ...), inside splitBlockBefore.
The issue occurs in SplitEdge when the Succ has a single predecessor
and the edge between the BB and Succ is not critical. This produces
the result ‘BB->Succ->New’. The new function splitBasicBlockBefore
was added to splitBlockBefore to handle the issue and now produces
the correct result ‘BB->New->Succ’.
Below is an example of splitting the block bb1 at its first instruction.
/// Original IR
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlock
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
br bb1.split
bb1.split:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
/// IR after splitEdge(bb0, bb1) using splitBasicBlockBefore
bb0:
br bb1.split
bb1.split
br bb1
bb1:
%0 = mul i32 1, 2
br bb2
bb2:
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92200
Relanded since the buildbot issue was unrelated to this commit.
When hoisting simple values out from a loop, and an optsize attribute, a
convergent call, or an invoke instruction hindered the pass from
unswitching the loop, the pass would return an incorrect Modified
status.
This was caught using the check introduced by D80916.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86085
This reverts commit dfd447c220.
After I pushed this commit, llvm-sphinx-docs started failing, due to:
Warning, treated as error:
extension 'recommonmark' has no setup() function;
is it really a Sphinx extension module?
I don't see how this commit may have caused that, but I'm still
reverting it since I don't know how to proceed with that
troubleshooting.
When hoisting simple values out from a loop, and an optsize attribute, a
convergent call, or an invoke instruction hindered the pass from
unswitching the loop, the pass would return an incorrect Modified
status.
This was caught using the check introduced by D80916.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86085
As mentioned in
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-July/143395.html,
loop-unswitch has not been ported to the NPM. Instead people are using
simple-loop-unswitch.
Pin all tests in Transforms/LoopUnswitch to legacy PM and replace all
other uses of loop-unswitch with simple-loop-unswitch.
One test that didn't fit into the above was
2014-06-21-congruent-constant.ll which seems to only pass with
loop-unswitch. That is also pinned to legacy PM.
Now all tests containing "-loop-unswitch" anywhere in the test succeed with
NPM turned on by default.
Reviewed By: ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85360
To match NewPM pass name, and also for readability.
Also rename rpo-functionattrs -> rpo-function-attrs while we're here.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84694
Summary:
There is currently a correctness issue when unrolling loops containing
callbr's where their indirect targets are being updated correctly to the
newly created labels, but their operands are not. This manifests in
unrolled loops where the second and subsequent copies of callbr
instructions have blockaddresses of the label from the first instance of
the unrolled loop, which would result in nonsensical runtime control
flow.
For now, conservatively do not unroll the loop. In the future, I think
we can pursue unrolling such loops provided we transform the cloned
callbr's operands correctly.
Such a transform and its legalities are being discussed in:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64101
Link: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42489
Link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clang-built-linux/z-hRWP9KqPI
Reviewers: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn, hfinkel, efriedma
Subscribers: efriedma, hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits, pirama, kees, nathanchance, E5ten, craig.topper, chandlerc, glider, void, srhines
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64368
llvm-svn: 366130
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Update MemorySSA in old LoopUnswitch pass.
Actual dependency and update is disabled by default.
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45301
llvm-svn: 341984
Loop unswitching makes substantial changes to a loop that can also affect cached
SCEV info in its outer loops as well, but it only cares to invalidate SCEV cache for the
innermost loop in case of full unswitching and does not invalidate anything at all in
case of trivial unswitching. As result, we may end up with incorrect data in cache.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46045
Reviewed By: mzolotukhin
llvm-svn: 333072
The commit rL308422 introduces a restriction for folding unconditional
branches. Specifically if empty block with unconditional branch leads to
header of the loop then elimination of this basic block is prohibited.
However it seems this condition is redundantly strict.
If elimination of this basic block does not introduce more back edges
then we can eliminate this block.
The patch implements this relax of restriction.
The test profile/Linux/counter_promo_nest.c in compiler-rt project
is updated to meet this change.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: pacxx
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324572
The patch causes the failure of the test
compiler-rt/test/profile/Linux/counter_promo_nest.c
To unblock buildbot, revert the patch while investigation is in progress.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324214
The commit rL308422 introduces a restriction for folding unconditional
branches. Specifically if empty block with unconditional branch leads to
header of the loop then elimination of this basic block is prohibited.
However it seems this condition is redundantly strict.
If elimination of this basic block does not introduce more back edges
then we can eliminate this block.
The patch implements this relax of restriction.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: pacxx
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42691
llvm-svn: 324208
This is to fix PR34257. rL309059 takes an early return when FindLIVLoopCondition
fails to find a loop invariant condition. This is wrong and it will disable loop
unswitch for select. The patch fixes the bug.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36985
llvm-svn: 312045
This is a workaround for the bug described in PR31652 and
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115497.html. The temporary
solution is to add a function EqualityPropUnSafe. In EqualityPropUnSafe, for
some simple patterns we can know the equality comparison may contains undef,
so we regard such comparison as unsafe and will not do loop-unswitching for
them. We also need to disable the select simplification when one of select
operand is undef and its result feeds into equality comparison.
The patch cannot clear the safety issue caused by the bug, but it can suppress
the issue from happening to some extent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35811
llvm-svn: 309059
Summary:
When simplifying unconditional branches from empty blocks, we pre-test if the
BB belongs to a set of loop headers and keep the block to prevent passes from
destroying canonical loop structure. However, the current algorithm fails if
the destination of the branch is a loop header. Especially when such a loop's
latch block is folded into loop header it results in additional backedges and
LoopSimplify turns it into a nested loop which prevent later optimizations
from being applied (e.g., loop unrolling and loop interleaving).
This patch augments the existing algorithm by further checking if the
destination of the branch belongs to a set of loop headers and defer
eliminating it if yes to LateSimplifyCFG.
Fixes PR33605: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33605
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier, pacxx, hsung, davidxl
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: ashutosh.nema, gberry, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35411
llvm-svn: 308422
This was reverted in r306252, but I already had the bug fixed and was
just trying to form a test case.
The original commit factored the logic for forming dedicated exits
inside of LoopSimplify into a helper that could be used elsewhere and
with an approach that required fewer intermediate data structures. See
that commit for full details including the change to the statistic, etc.
The code looked fine to me and my reviewers, but in fact didn't handle
indirectbr correctly -- it left the 'InLoopPredecessors' vector dirty.
If you have code that looks *just* right, you can end up leaking these
predecessors into a subsequent rewrite, and crash deep down when trying
to update PHI nodes for predecessors that don't exist.
I've added an assert that makes the bug much more obvious, and then
changed the code to reliably clear the vector so we don't get this bug
again in some other form as the code changes.
I've also added a test case that *does* manage to catch this while also
giving some nice positive coverage in the face of indirectbr.
The real code that found this came out of what I think is CPython's
interpreter loop, but any code with really "creative" interpreter loops
mixing indirectbr and other exit paths could manage to tickle the bug.
I was hard to reduce the original test case because in addition to
having a particular pattern of IR, the whole thing depends on the order
of the predecessors which is in turn depends on use list order. The test
case added here was designed so that in multiple different predecessor
orderings it should always end up going down the same path and tripping
the same bug. I hope. At least, it tripped it for me without
manipulating the use list order which is better than anything bugpoint
could do...
llvm-svn: 306257
I want to use the same logic as LoopSimplify to form dedicated exits in
another pass (SimpleLoopUnswitch) so I wanted to factor it out here.
I also noticed that there is a pretty significantly more efficient way
to implement this than the way the code in LoopSimplify worked. We don't
need to actually retain the set of unique exit blocks, we can just
rewrite them as we find them and use only a set to deduplicate.
This did require changing one part of LoopSimplify to not re-use the
unique set of exits, but it only used it to check that there was
a single unique exit. That part of the code is about to walk the exiting
blocks anyways, so it seemed better to rewrite it to use those exiting
blocks to compute this property on-demand.
I also had to ditch a statistic, but it doesn't seem terribly valuable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34049
llvm-svn: 306081
(h/t to Chandler for pointing this out)
The test in question was not at all testing what it was supposed to
test. We do not //care// about placing `!make.implicit` in inner
constant branch (since it will be folded away anyway). We care about
placing `!make.implicit` in the outer branch that switches between
either version of the loop.
Having said that, it is _correct_ to leave behind the `!make.implicit`
in the inner branch, but there is no need to do so.
llvm-svn: 299912
Currently the default C calling convention functions are treated
the same as compute kernels. Make this explicit so the default
calling convention can be changed to a non-kernel.
Converted with perl -pi -e 's/define void/define amdgpu_kernel void/'
on the relevant test directories (and undoing in one place that actually
wanted a non-kernel).
llvm-svn: 298444
Loop unswitching can be extremely harmful for a SIMT target. In case
if hoisted condition is not uniform a SIMT machine will execute both
clones of a loop sequentially. Therefor LoopUnswitch checks if the
condition is non-divergent.
Since DivergenceAnalysis adds an expensive PostDominatorTree analysis
not needed for non-SIMT targets a new option is added to avoid unneded
analysis initialization. The method getAnalysisUsage is called when
TargetTransformInfo is not yet available and we cannot use it here.
For that reason a new field DivergentTarget is added to PassManagerBuilder
to control the behavior and set this field from a target.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30796
llvm-svn: 298104
Richard Smith