Summary:
This is part 1 of fixes to address the problems described in
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22719.
The restriction to limit loop scales to 4,096 does not really prevent
overflows anymore, as the underlying algorithm has changed and does
not seem to suffer from this problem.
Additionally, artificially restricting loop scales to such a low number
skews frequency information, making loops of equal hotness appear to
have very different hotness properties.
The only loops that are artificially restricted to a scale of 4096 are
infinite loops (those loops with an exit mass of 0). This prevents
infinite loops from skewing the frequencies of other regions in the CFG.
At the end of propagation, frequencies are scaled to values that take no
more than 64 bits to represent. When the range of frequencies to be
represented fits within 61 bits, it pushes up the scaling factor to a
minimum of 8 to better distinguish small frequency values. Otherwise,
small frequency values are all saturated down at 1.
Tested on x86_64.
Reviewers: dexonsmith
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8718
llvm-svn: 233826
When a loop gets bundled up, its outgoing edges are quite large, and can
just barely overflow 64-bits. If one successor has multiple incoming
edges -- and that successor is getting all the incoming mass --
combining just its edges can overflow. Handle that by saturating rather
than asserting.
This fixes PR21622.
llvm-svn: 223500
Implementation is small now -- the interesting logic was moved to
`BranchProbability` a while ago. Move it into `bfi_detail` and get rid
of the related TODOs.
I was originally planning to define it within `BlockFrequencyInfoImpl`
(or `BFIIBase`), but it seems cleaner in a namespace. Besides,
`isPodLike` needs to be specialized before `BlockMass` can be used in
some of the other data structures, and there isn't a clear way to do
that.
llvm-svn: 212866
ScaledNumber has been cleaned up enough to pull out of BFI now. Still
work to do there (tests for shifting, bloated printing code, etc.), but
it seems clean enough for its new home.
llvm-svn: 211562
This reverts commit r207287, reapplying r207286.
I'm hoping that declaring an explicit struct and instantiating
`addBlockEdges()` directly works around the GCC crash from r207286.
This is a lot more boilerplate, though.
llvm-svn: 207438
This reverts commit r207286. It causes an ICE on the
cmake-llvm-x86_64-linux buildbot [1]:
llvm/lib/Analysis/BlockFrequencyInfo.cpp: In lambda function:
llvm/lib/Analysis/BlockFrequencyInfo.cpp:182:1: internal compiler error: in get_expr_operands, at tree-ssa-operands.c:1035
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/cmake-llvm-x86_64-linux/builds/12093/steps/build_llvm/logs/stdio
llvm-svn: 207287
Previously, irreducible backedges were ignored. With this commit,
irreducible SCCs are discovered on the fly, and modelled as loops with
multiple headers.
This approximation specifies the headers of irreducible sub-SCCs as its
entry blocks and all nodes that are targets of a backedge within it
(excluding backedges within true sub-loops). Block frequency
calculations act as if we insert a new block that intercepts all the
edges to the headers. All backedges and entries to the irreducible SCC
point to this imaginary block. This imaginary block has an edge (with
even probability) to each header block.
The result is now reasonable enough that I've added a number of
testcases for irreducible control flow. I've outlined in
`BlockFrequencyInfoImpl.h` ways to improve the approximation.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207286
Remove the concepts of "forward" and "general" mass distributions, which
was wrong. The split might have made sense in an early version of the
algorithm, but it's definitely wrong now.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207195
Rather than scaling loop headers and then scaling all the loop members
by the header frequency, scale `LoopData::Scale` itself, and scale the
loop members by it. It's much more obvious what's going on this way,
and doesn't cost any extra multiplies.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207189
Make `getPackagedNode()` a member function of
`BlockFrequencyInfoImplBase` so that it's available for templated code.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207183
As pointed out by David Blaikie in code review, a `std::list<T>` is
simpler than a `std::vector<std::unique_ptr<T>>`. Another option is a
`std::deque<T>` (which allocates in chunks), but I'd like to leave open
the option of inserting in the middle of the sequence for handling
irreducible control flow on the fly.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 207177
The branch that skips irreducible backedges was only active when
propagating mass at the top-level. In particular, when propagating mass
through a loop recognized by `LoopInfo` with irreducible control flow
inside, irreducible backedges would not be skipped.
Not sure where that idea came from, but the result was that mass was
lost until after loop exit. Added a testcase that covers this case.
llvm-svn: 206860
Store pointers directly to loops inside the nodes. This could have been
done without changing the type stored in `std::vector<>`. However,
rather than computing the number of loops before constructing them
(which `LoopInfo` doesn't provide directly), I've switched to a
`vector<unique_ptr<LoopData>>`.
This adds some heap overhead, but the number of loops is typically
small.
llvm-svn: 206857
This was implicitly with copy assignment before, which fails to actually
clear `std::vector<>`'s heap storage. Move assignment would work, but
since MSVC can't imply those anyway, explicitly `clear()`-ing members
makes more sense.
llvm-svn: 206856
define below all header includes in the lib/CodeGen/... tree. While the
current modules implementation doesn't check for this kind of ODR
violation yet, it is likely to grow support for it in the future. It
also removes one layer of macro pollution across all the included
headers.
Other sub-trees will follow.
llvm-svn: 206837
This reverts commit r206707, reapplying r206704. The preceding commit
to CalcSpillWeights should have sorted out the failing buildbots.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206766
This reverts commit r206677, reapplying my BlockFrequencyInfo rewrite.
I've done a careful audit, added some asserts, and fixed a couple of
bugs (unfortunately, they were in unlikely code paths). There's a small
chance that this will appease the failing bots [1][2]. (If so, great!)
If not, I have a follow-up commit ready that will temporarily add
-debug-only=block-freq to the two failing tests, allowing me to compare
the code path between what the failing bots and what my machines (and
the rest of the bots) are doing. Once I've triggered those builds, I'll
revert both commits so the bots go green again.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206704
This reverts commit r206666, as planned.
Still stumped on why the bots are failing. Sanitizer bots haven't
turned anything up. If anyone can help me debug either of the failures
(referenced in r206666) I'll owe them a beer. (In the meantime, I'll be
auditing my patch for undefined behaviour.)
llvm-svn: 206677
This reverts commit r206628, reapplying r206622 (and r206626).
Two tests are failing only on buildbots [1][2]: i.e., I can't reproduce
on Darwin, and Chandler can't reproduce on Linux. Asan and valgrind
don't tell us anything, but we're hoping the msan bot will catch it.
So, I'm applying this again to get more feedback from the bots. I'll
leave it in long enough to trigger builds in at least the sanitizer
buildbots (it was failing for reasons unrelated to my commit last time
it was in), and hopefully a few others.... and then I expect to revert a
third time.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
llvm-svn: 206666
This reverts commit r206622 and the MSVC fixup in r206626.
Apparently the remotely failing tests are still failing, despite my
attempt to fix the nondeterminism in r206621.
llvm-svn: 206628
This reverts commit r206556, effectively reapplying commit r206548 and
its fixups in r206549 and r206550.
In an intervening commit I've added target triples to the tests that
were failing remotely [1] (but passing locally). I'm hoping the mystery
is solved? I'll revert this again if the tests are still failing
remotely.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
llvm-svn: 206622
Diego Novillo