Currently, when edge weights are assigned to edges that are created when lowering switch statement, the weight on the edge to default statement (let's call it "default weight" here) is not considered. We need to distribute this weight properly. However, without value profiling, we have no idea how to distribute it. In this patch, I applied the heuristic that this weight is evenly distributed to successors.
For example, given a switch statement with cases 1,2,3,5,10,11,20, and every edge from switch to each successor has weight 10. If there is a binary search tree built to test if n < 10, then its two out-edges will have weight 4x10+10/2 = 45 and 3x10 + 10/2 = 35 respectively (currently they are 40 and 30 without considering the default weight). Each distribution (which is 5 here) will be stored in each SwitchWorkListItem for further distribution.
There are some exceptions:
For a jump table header which doesn't have any edge to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
For a bit test header which covers a contiguous range and hence has no edges to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
When the branch checks a single value or a contiguous range with no edge to default statement, we don't distribute the default weight to it.
In other cases, the default weight is evenly distributed to successors.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12418
llvm-svn: 246522
Currently, when lowering switch statement and a new basic block is built for jump table / bit test header, the edge to this new block is not assigned with a correct weight. This patch collects the edge weight from all its successors and assign this sum of weights to the edge (and also the other fall-through edge). Test cases are adjusted accordingly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12166#fae6eca7
llvm-svn: 246104
When lowering switch statement, if bit tests are used then LLVM will always generates a jump to the default statement in the last bit test. However, this is not necessary when all cases in bit tests cover a contiguous range. This is because when generating the bit tests header MBB, there is a range check that guarantees cases in bit tests won't go outside of [low, high], where low and high are minimum and maximum case values in the bit tests. This patch checks if this is the case and then doesn't emit jump to default statement and hence saves a bit test and a branch.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12249
llvm-svn: 245976
Sparse switches with profile info are lowered as weight-balanced BSTs. For
example, if the node weights are {1,1,1,1,1,1000}, the right-most node would
end up in a tree by itself, bringing it closer to the top.
However, a leaf in this BST can contain up to 3 cases, and having a single
case in a leaf node as in the example means the tree might become
unnecessarily high.
This patch adds a heauristic to the pivot selection algorithm that moves more
cases into leaf nodes unless that would lower their rank. It still doesn't
yield the optimal tree in every case, but I believe it's conservatibely correct.
llvm-svn: 240224
To same compile time, the analysis to find dense case-clusters in switches is
not done at -O0. However, when the whole switch is dense enough, it is easy to
turn it into a jump table, resulting in much faster code with no extra effort.
llvm-svn: 240071
When checking (High - Low + 1).sle(BitWidth), BitWidth would be truncated
to the size of the left-hand side. In the case of this PR, the left-hand
side was i4, so BitWidth=64 got truncated to 0 and the assert failed.
llvm-svn: 239048
This will cause hot nodes to appear closer to the root.
The literature says building the tree like this makes it a near-optimal (in
terms of search time given key frequencies) binary search tree. In LLVM's case,
we can do up to 3 comparisons in each leaf node, so it might be better to opt
for lower tree height in some cases; that's something to look into in the
future.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9318
llvm-svn: 236192
Previously, the code would try to put a fall-through case last,
even if that meant moving a case with much higher branch weight
further down the chain.
Ordering by branch weight is most important, putting a fall-through
block last is secondary.
llvm-svn: 235942
Third time's the charm. The previous commit was reverted as a
reverse for-loop in SelectionDAGBuilder::lowerWorkItem did 'I--'
on an iterator at the beginning of a vector, causing asserts
when using debugging iterators. This commit fixes that.
llvm-svn: 235608
This is a re-commit of r235101, which also fixes the problems with the previous patch:
- Switches with only a default case and non-fallthrough were handled incorrectly
- The previous patch tickled a bug in PowerPC Early-Return Creation which is fixed here.
> This is a major rewrite of the SelectionDAG switch lowering. The previous code
> would lower switches as a binary tre, discovering clusters of cases
> suitable for lowering by jump tables or bit tests as it went along. To increase
> the likelihood of finding jump tables, the binary tree pivot was selected to
> maximize case density on both sides of the pivot.
>
> By not selecting the pivot in the middle, the binary trees would not always
> be balanced, leading to performance problems in the generated code.
>
> This patch rewrites the lowering to search for clusters of cases
> suitable for jump tables or bit tests first, and then builds the binary
> tree around those clusters. This way, the binary tree will always be balanced.
>
> This has the added benefit of decoupling the different aspects of the lowering:
> tree building and jump table or bit tests finding are now easier to tweak
> separately.
>
> For example, this will enable us to balance the tree based on profile info
> in the future.
>
> The algorithm for finding jump tables is quadratic, whereas the previous algorithm
> was O(n log n) for common cases, and quadratic only in the worst-case. This
> doesn't seem to be major problem in practice, e.g. compiling a file consisting
> of a 10k-case switch was only 30% slower, and such large switches should be rare
> in practice. Compiling e.g. gcc.c showed no compile-time difference. If this
> does turn out to be a problem, we could limit the search space of the algorithm.
>
> This commit also disables all optimizations during switch lowering in -O0.
>
> Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8649
llvm-svn: 235560
This is a major rewrite of the SelectionDAG switch lowering. The previous code
would lower switches as a binary tre, discovering clusters of cases
suitable for lowering by jump tables or bit tests as it went along. To increase
the likelihood of finding jump tables, the binary tree pivot was selected to
maximize case density on both sides of the pivot.
By not selecting the pivot in the middle, the binary trees would not always
be balanced, leading to performance problems in the generated code.
This patch rewrites the lowering to search for clusters of cases
suitable for jump tables or bit tests first, and then builds the binary
tree around those clusters. This way, the binary tree will always be balanced.
This has the added benefit of decoupling the different aspects of the lowering:
tree building and jump table or bit tests finding are now easier to tweak
separately.
For example, this will enable us to balance the tree based on profile info
in the future.
The algorithm for finding jump tables is O(n^2), whereas the previous algorithm
was O(n log n) for common cases, and quadratic only in the worst-case. This
doesn't seem to be major problem in practice, e.g. compiling a file consisting
of a 10k-case switch was only 30% slower, and such large switches should be rare
in practice. Compiling e.g. gcc.c showed no compile-time difference. If this
does turn out to be a problem, we could limit the search space of the algorithm.
This commit also disables all optimizations during switch lowering in -O0.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8649
llvm-svn: 235101
Cong Hou