Teach SCEV about the @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, which has exactly the same
semantics as a sub expression. This allows us to query hardware-loops, which
contain this @loop.decrement.reg intrinsic, so that we can calculate iteration
counts, exit values, etc. of hardwareloops.
This "int_loop_decrement_reg" intrinsic is defined as "IntrNoDuplicate". Thus,
while hardware-loops and tripcounts now become analysable by SCEV, this
prevents the usual loop transformations from applying transformations on
hardware-loops, which is what we want at this point, for which I have added
test cases for loopunrolling and IndVarSimplify and LFTR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71563
We don't unroll vector loops for MVE targets, but we miss the case
when loops only contain intrinsic calls. So just move the logic a
bit to catch this case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72440
rL341831 moved one-use check higher up, restricting a few folds
that produced a single instruction from two instructions to the case
where the inner instruction would go away.
Original commit message:
> InstCombine: move hasOneUse check to the top of foldICmpAddConstant
>
> There were two combines not covered by the check before now,
> neither of which actually differed from normal in the benefit analysis.
>
> The most recent seems to be because it was just added at the top of the
> function (naturally). The older is from way back in 2008 (r46687)
> when we just didn't put those checks in so routinely, and has been
> diligently maintained since.
From the commit message alone, there doesn't seem to be a
deeper motivation, deeper problem that was trying to solve,
other than 'fixing the wrong one-use check'.
As i have briefly discusses in IRC with Tim, the original motivation
can no longer be recovered, too much time has passed.
However i believe that the original fold was doing the right thing,
we should be performing such a transformation even if the inner `add`
will not go away - that will still unchain the comparison from `add`,
it will no longer need to wait for `add` to compute.
Doing so doesn't seem to break any particular idioms,
as least as far as i can see.
References https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44100
Summary:
Most of IR instructions got better code size estimations after commit 47a5c36b.
So default parameters values should be updated to improve inlining and
unrolling for the target.
Reviewers: rampitec, arsenm
Reviewed By: rampitec
Subscribers: kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70391
The basic idea of the transform is to convert variant loop exit conditions into invariant exit conditions by changing the iteration on which the exit is taken when we know that the trip count is unobservable. See the original patch which introduced the code for a more complete explanation.
The individual parts of this have been reviewed, the result has been fuzzed, and then further analyzed by hand, but despite all of that, I will not be suprised to see breakage here. If you see problems, please don't hesitate to revert - though please do provide a test case. The most likely class of issues are latent SCEV bugs and without a reduced test case, I'll be essentially stuck on reducing them.
(Note: A bunch of tests were opted out of the new transform to preserve coverage. That landed in a previous commit to simplify revert cycles if they turn out to be needed.)
Summary:
I believe this bisects to https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983
(`[LoopUnroll] Only peel if a predicate becomes known in the loop body.`)
While that revision did contain tests that showed arguably-subpar peeling
for [in]equality predicates that [not] happen in the middle of the loop,
it also disabled peeling for the *first* loop iteration,
because latch would be canonicalized to [in]equality comparison..
That was intentional as per https://reviews.llvm.org/D44983#1059583.
I'm not 100% sure that i'm using correct checks here,
but this fix appears to be going in the right direction..
Let me know if i'm missing some checks here..
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43840 | PR43840 ]].
Reviewers: fhahn, mkazantsev, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits, fhahn
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69617
Summary:
Currently we only forget the loop we added LCSSA phis for. But SCEV
expressions in other loops could also depend on the instruction we added
a PHI for and currently we do not invalidate those expressions. This can
happen when we use ScalarEvolution before converting a function to LCSSA
form. The SCEV expressions will refer to the non-LCSSA value. If this
SCEV expression is then used with the expander, we do not preserve LCSSA
form.
This patch properly forgets the values we created PHIs for. Those need
to be recomputed again. This patch fixes PR43458.
Currently SCEV::verify does not catch this mismatch and any test would
need to run multiple passes to trigger the error (e.g. -loop-reduce
-loop-unroll). I will also look into catching this kind of mismatch in
the verifier. Also, we currently forget the whole loop in LCSSA and I'll
check if we can be more surgical.
Reviewers: efriedma, sanjoy.google, reames
Reviewed By: efriedma
Subscribers: zzheng, hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68194
For a runtime loop if we can compute its trip count upperbound:
Don't unroll if:
1. loop is not guaranteed to run either zero or upperbound iterations; and
2. trip count upperbound is less than UnrollMaxUpperBound
Unless user or TTI asked to do so.
If unrolling, limit unroll factor to loop's trip count upperbound.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62989
Change-Id: I6083c46a9d98b2e22cd855e60523fdc5a4929c73
llvm-svn: 373017
Add an ability to specify the max full unroll count for LoopUnrollPass pass
in pass options.
Reviewers: fhahn, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67701
llvm-svn: 372305
We use `< UP.Threshold` later on, so we should use LoopSize + 1, to
allow unrolling if the result won't exceed to loop size.
Fixes PR43305.
Reviewers: efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67594
llvm-svn: 372084
Summary:
When reconstructing the CFG of the loop after unrolling,
LoopUnroll could in some cases remove the phi operands of
loop-carried values instead of preserving them, resulting
in undef phi values after loop unrolling.
When doing this reconstruction, avoid removing incoming
phi values for phis in the successor blocks if the successor
is the block we are jumping to anyway.
Patch-by: ebevhan
Reviewers: fhahn, efriedma
Reviewed By: fhahn
Subscribers: bjope, lebedev.ri, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66334
llvm-svn: 369886
We already supported rewriting loop exit values for multiple exit loops, but if any of the loop exits were not computable, we gave up on all loop exit values. This patch generalizes the existing code to handle individual computable loop exits where possible.
As discussed in the review, this is a starting point for figuring out a better API. The code is a bit ugly, but getting it in lets us test as we go.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65544
llvm-svn: 368898
Due to the nature of the beat system in the MVE architecture, along with tail
predication and low-overhead loops, unrolling has less benefit compared to
normal loops. You can not, for example, hide the latency of a load with other
instructions as you can for scalar code. Preventing unrolling also makes the
code easier to read and reason about.
So if a loop contains vector code, don't enable the runtime unrolling. At least
for the time being.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65803
llvm-svn: 368530
This patch adds an ability to disable profile based peeling
causing the peeling of all iterations and as a result prohibits
further unroll/peeling attempts on that loop.
The motivation to get an ability to separate peeling usage in
pipeline where in the first part we peel only separate iterations if needed
and later in pipeline we apply the full peeling which will prohibit further peeling.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64983
llvm-svn: 367668
Current peeling cost model can decide to peel off not all iterations
but only some of them to eliminate conditions on phi. At the same time
if any peeling happens the door for further unroll/peel optimizations on that
loop closes because the part of the code thinks that if peeling happened
it is profile based peeling and all iterations are peeled off.
To resolve this inconsistency the patch provides the flag which states whether
the full peeling basing on profile is enabled or not and peeling cost model
is able to modify this field like it does not PeelCount.
In a separate patch I will introduce an option to allow/disallow peeling basing
on profile.
To avoid infinite loop peeling the patch tracks the total number of peeled iteration
through llvm.loop.peeled.count loop metadata.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64972
llvm-svn: 367647
We'd like to determine the idom of exit block after peeling one iteration.
Let Exit is exit block.
Let ExitingSet - is a set of predecessors of Exit block. They are exiting blocks.
Let Latch' and ExitingSet' are copies after a peeling.
We'd like to find an idom'(Exit) - idom of Exit after peeling.
It is an evident that idom'(Exit) will be the nearest common dominator of ExitingSet and ExitingSet'.
idom(Exit) is a nearest common dominator of ExitingSet.
idom(Exit)' is a nearest common dominator of ExitingSet'.
Taking into account that we have a single Latch, Latch' will dominate Header and idom(Exit).
So the idom'(Exit) is nearest common dominator of idom(Exit)' and Latch'.
All these basic blocks are in the same loop, so what we find is
(nearest common dominator of idom(Exit) and Latch)'.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65292
llvm-svn: 367044
Current algorithm to update branch weights of latch block and its copies is
based on the assumption that number of peeling iterations is approximately equal
to trip count.
However it is not correct. According to profitability check in one case we can decide to peel
in case it helps to reduce the number of phi nodes. In this case the number of peeled iteration
can be less then estimated trip count.
This patch introduces another way to set the branch weights to peeled of branches.
Let F is a weight of the edge from latch to header.
Let E is a weight of the edge from latch to exit.
F/(F+E) is a probability to go to loop and E/(F+E) is a probability to go to exit.
Then, Estimated TripCount = F / E.
For I-th (counting from 0) peeled off iteration we set the the weights for
the peeled latch as (TC - I, 1). It gives us reasonable distribution,
The probability to go to exit 1/(TC-I) increases. At the same time
the estimated trip count of remaining loop reduces by I.
As a result after peeling off N iteration the weights will be
(F - N * E, E) and trip count of loop becomes
F / E - N or TC - N.
The idea is taken from the review of the patch D63918 proposed by Philip.
Reviewers: reames, mkuper, iajbar, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64235
llvm-svn: 366665
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
It is possible that loop exit has two predecessors in a loop body.
In this case after the peeling the iDom of the exit should be a clone of
iDom of original exit but no a clone of a block coming to this exit.
Reviewers: reames, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64618
llvm-svn: 366050
This CL enables peeling of the loop with multiple exits where
one exit should be from latch and others are basic blocks with
call to deopt.
The peeling is enabled under the flag which is false by default.
Reviewers: reames, mkuper, iajbar, fhahn
Reviewed By: reames
Subscribers: xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63923
llvm-svn: 366048
This patch generalizes the UnrollLoop utility to support loops that exit
from the header instead of the latch. Usually, LoopRotate would take care
of must of those cases, but in some cases (e.g. -Oz), LoopRotate does
not kick in.
Codesize impact looks relatively neutral on ARM64 with -Oz + LTO.
Program master patch diff
External/S.../CFP2006/447.dealII/447.dealII 629060.00 627676.00 -0.2%
External/SPEC/CINT2000/176.gcc/176.gcc 1245916.00 1244932.00 -0.1%
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 86100.00 86156.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...arks/Rodinia/backprop/backprop 66212.00 66252.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...chmarks/Prolangs-C++/life/life 67276.00 67312.00 0.1%
MultiSourc...s/Prolangs-C/compiler/compiler 69824.00 69788.00 -0.1%
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/assembler/assembler 86672.00 86696.00 0.0%
Reviewers: efriedma, vsk, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61962
llvm-svn: 364398
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
> llvm-svn: 363046
llvm-svn: 363786
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
I have set up a separate review D61933 for a fix which is required for this patch.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel, jmorse
Reviewed By: hfinkel, jmorse
Subscribers: jmorse, javed.absar, eraman, kcc, bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 363046
This option allows loops with small max trip counts to be fully unrolled. This
can help with code like the remainder loops from manually unrolled loops like
those that appear in the cmsis dsp library. We would apparently previously
runtime unroll them with the default unroll count (4).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63064
llvm-svn: 362928
For some reason multiple places need to do this, and the variant the
loop unroller and inliner use was not handling it.
Also, introduce a new wrapper to be slightly more precise, since on
AMDGPU some addrspacecasts are free, but not no-ops.
llvm-svn: 362436
Those two subtarget features were awkward because their semantics are
reversed: each one indicates the _lack_ of support for something in
the architecture, rather than the presence. As a consequence, you
don't get the behavior you want if you combine two sets of feature
bits.
Each SubtargetFeature for an FP architecture version now comes in four
versions, one for each combination of those options. So you can still
say (for example) '+vfp2' in a feature string and it will mean what
it's always meant, but there's a new string '+vfp2d16sp' meaning the
version without those extra options.
A lot of this change is just mechanically replacing positive checks
for the old features with negative checks for the new ones. But one
more interesting change is that I've rearranged getFPUFeatures() so
that the main FPU feature is appended to the output list *before*
rather than after the features derived from the Restriction field, so
that -fp64 and -d32 can override defaults added by the main feature.
Reviewers: dmgreen, samparker, SjoerdMeijer
Subscribers: srhines, javed.absar, eraman, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, zzheng, Petar.Avramovic, cfe-commits, llvm-commits
Tags: #clang, #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60691
llvm-svn: 361845
Summary:
Bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39024
The bug reports that a vectorized loop is stepped through 4 times and each step through the loop seemed to show a different path. I found two problems here:
A) An incorrect line number on a preheader block (for.body.preheader) instruction causes a step into the loop before it begins.
B) Instructions in the middle block have different line numbers which give the impression of another iteration.
In this patch I give all of the middle block instructions the line number of the scalar loop latch terminator branch. This seems to provide the smoothest debugging experience because the vectorized loops will always end on this line before dropping into the scalar loop. To solve problem A I have altered llvm::SplitBlockPredecessors to accommodate loop header blocks.
Reviewers: samsonov, vsk, aprantl, probinson, anemet, hfinkel
Reviewed By: hfinkel
Subscribers: bjope, jmellorcrummey, hfinkel, gbedwell, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm, #debug-info
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60831
llvm-svn: 360162
Summary:
In the following cases, unrolling can be beneficial, even when
optimizing for code size:
1) very low trip counts
2) potential to constant fold most instructions after fully unrolling.
We can unroll in those cases, by setting the unrolling threshold to the
loop size. This might highlight some cost modeling issues and fixing
them will have a positive impact in general.
Reviewers: vsk, efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60265
llvm-svn: 358586
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
Enable some of the existing size optimizations for cold code under PGO.
A ~5% code size saving in big internal app under PGO.
The way it gets BFI/PSI is discussed in the RFC thread
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-March/130894.html
Note it doesn't currently touch loop passes.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman
Reviewed By: eraman
Subscribers: mgorny, javed.absar, smeenai, mehdi_amini, eraman, zzheng, steven_wu, dexonsmith, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59514
llvm-svn: 358422
The test case requires the peeled loop to be forgotten after peeling,
even though it does not have a parent. When called via the unroller,
SE->forgetTopmostLoop is also called, so the test case would also pass
without any SCEV invalidation, but peelLoop is exposed as utility
function. Also, in the test case, simplifyLoop will make changes,
removing the loop from SCEV, but it is better to not rely on this
behavior.
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkazantsev
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58192
llvm-svn: 354031
Summary:
This fixes the IDom for exit blocks and all blocks reachable from the exit blocks, when runtime unrolling under multiexit/exiting case.
We initially had a restrictive check that the IDom is only updated when
it is the header of the loop.
However, we also need to update the IDom to the correct one when the
IDom is any block within the original loop. See added test cases (which
fail dom tree verification without the patch).
Reviewers: reames, mzolotukhin, mkazantsev, hfinkel
Reviewed by: brzycki, kuhar
Subscribers: zzheng, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56284
llvm-svn: 350640
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
Sjoerd Meijer