Added a separate metadata to indicate when the loop
has already been vectorized instead of setting width and count to 1.
Patch written by Divya Shanmughan and Aditya Kumar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36220
llvm-svn: 311281
Summary:
vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth is generally useful in terms of performance. I've tested the impact of changing this to default on speccpu benchmarks on sandybridge machines. The result shows non-negative impact:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 26.84 -0.31%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 46.19 +0.89%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 42.92 -0.44%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 38.57 -2.25%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 24.54 -0.76%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.08 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 47.58 -0.99%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.06 +1.87%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 22.65 -0.12%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 33.69 +4.97%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.43 +1.70%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 23.02 -0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.57 -0.43%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 40.35 +0.27%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.96 +0.06%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.4 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 27.91 -0.08%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 57.47 -0.20%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.52 +1.35%
geometric mean +0.29%
The regression on 453.povray seems real, but is due to secondary effects as all hot functions are bit-identical with and without the flag.
I started this patch to consult upstream opinions on this. It will be greatly appreciated if the community can help test the performance impact of this change on other architectures so that we can decided if this should be target-dependent.
Reviewers: hfinkel, mkuper, davidxl, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: rengolin, sanjoy, javed.absar, bjope, dorit, magabari, RKSimon, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33341
llvm-svn: 306933
Summary:
vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth is generally useful in terms of performance. I've tested the impact of changing this to default on speccpu benchmarks on sandybridge machines. The result shows non-negative impact:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 26.84 -0.31%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 46.19 +0.89%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 42.92 -0.44%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 38.57 -2.25%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 24.54 -0.76%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.08 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 47.58 -0.99%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.06 +1.87%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 22.65 -0.12%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 33.69 +4.97%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.43 +1.70%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 23.02 -0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.57 -0.43%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 40.35 +0.27%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.96 +0.06%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.4 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 27.91 -0.08%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 57.47 -0.20%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.52 +1.35%
geometric mean +0.29%
The regression on 453.povray seems real, but is due to secondary effects as all hot functions are bit-identical with and without the flag.
I started this patch to consult upstream opinions on this. It will be greatly appreciated if the community can help test the performance impact of this change on other architectures so that we can decided if this should be target-dependent.
Reviewers: hfinkel, mkuper, davidxl, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: rengolin, sanjoy, javed.absar, bjope, dorit, magabari, RKSimon, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33341
llvm-svn: 306336
Summary:
vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth is generally useful in terms of performance. I've tested the impact of changing this to default on speccpu benchmarks on sandybridge machines. The result shows non-negative impact:
spec/2006/fp/C++/444.namd 26.84 -0.31%
spec/2006/fp/C++/447.dealII 46.19 +0.89%
spec/2006/fp/C++/450.soplex 42.92 -0.44%
spec/2006/fp/C++/453.povray 38.57 -2.25%
spec/2006/fp/C/433.milc 24.54 -0.76%
spec/2006/fp/C/470.lbm 41.08 +0.26%
spec/2006/fp/C/482.sphinx3 47.58 -0.99%
spec/2006/int/C++/471.omnetpp 22.06 +1.87%
spec/2006/int/C++/473.astar 22.65 -0.12%
spec/2006/int/C++/483.xalancbmk 33.69 +4.97%
spec/2006/int/C/400.perlbench 33.43 +1.70%
spec/2006/int/C/401.bzip2 23.02 -0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/403.gcc 32.57 -0.43%
spec/2006/int/C/429.mcf 40.35 +0.27%
spec/2006/int/C/445.gobmk 26.96 +0.06%
spec/2006/int/C/456.hmmer 24.4 +0.19%
spec/2006/int/C/458.sjeng 27.91 -0.08%
spec/2006/int/C/462.libquantum 57.47 -0.20%
spec/2006/int/C/464.h264ref 46.52 +1.35%
geometric mean +0.29%
The regression on 453.povray seems real, but is due to secondary effects as all hot functions are bit-identical with and without the flag.
I started this patch to consult upstream opinions on this. It will be greatly appreciated if the community can help test the performance impact of this change on other architectures so that we can decided if this should be target-dependent.
Reviewers: hfinkel, mkuper, davidxl, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: rengolin, sanjoy, javed.absar, bjope, dorit, magabari, RKSimon, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33341
llvm-svn: 305960
Getting accurate locations for loops is important, because those locations are
used by the frontend to generate optimization remarks. Currently, optimization
remarks for loops often appear on the wrong line, often the first line of the
loop body instead of the loop itself. This is confusing because that line might
itself be another loop, or might be somewhere else completely if the body was
inlined function call. This happens because of the way we find the loop's
starting location. First, we look for a preheader, and if we find one, and its
terminator has a debug location, then we use that. Otherwise, we look for a
location on an instruction in the loop header.
The fallback heuristic is not bad, but will almost always find the beginning of
the body, and not the loop statement itself. The preheader location search
often fails because there's often not a preheader, and even when there is a
preheader, depending on how it was formed, it sometimes carries the location of
some preceeding code.
I don't see any good theoretical way to fix this problem. On the other hand,
this seems like a straightforward solution: Put the debug location in the
loop's llvm.loop metadata. A companion Clang patch will cause Clang to insert
llvm.loop metadata with appropriate locations when generating debugging
information. With these changes, our loop remarks have much more accurate
locations.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19738
llvm-svn: 270771
Aditya Kumar