As part of the unification of the debug format and the MIR format, print
MBB references as '%bb.5'.
The MIR printer prints the IR name of a MBB only for block definitions.
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)->getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(*\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#" << ([a-zA-Z0-9_]+)\.getNumber\(\)/" << printMBBReference(\1)/g'
* find . \( -name "*.txt" -o -name "*.s" -o -name "*.mir" -o -name "*.cpp" -o -name "*.h" -o -name "*.ll" \) -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i '' -E 's/BB#([0-9]+)/%bb.\1/g'
* grep -nr 'BB#' and fix
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40422
llvm-svn: 319665
Summary:
This patch teaches PostDominatorTree about infinite loops. It is built on top of D29705 by @dberlin which includes a very detailed motivation for this change.
What's new is that the patch also teaches the incremental updater how to deal with reverse-unreachable regions and how to properly maintain and verify tree roots. Before that, the incremental algorithm sometimes ended up preserving reverse-unreachable regions after updates that wouldn't appear in the tree if it was constructed from scratch on the same CFG.
This patch makes the following assumptions:
- A sequence of updates should produce the same tree as a recalculating it.
- Any sequence of the same updates should lead to the same tree.
- Siblings and roots are unordered.
The last two properties are essential to efficiently perform batch updates in the future.
When it comes to the first one, we can decide later that the consistency between freshly built tree and an updated one doesn't matter match, as there are many correct ways to pick roots in infinite loops, and to relax this assumption. That should enable us to recalculate postdominators less frequently.
This patch is pretty conservative when it comes to incremental updates on reverse-unreachable regions and ends up recalculating the whole tree in many cases. It should be possible to improve the performance in many cases, if we decide that it's important enough.
That being said, my experiments showed that reverse-unreachable are very rare in the IR emitted by clang when bootstrapping clang. Here are the statistics I collected by analyzing IR between passes and after each removePredecessor call:
```
# functions: 52283
# samples: 337609
# reverse unreachable BBs: 216022
# BBs: 247840796
Percent reverse-unreachable: 0.08716159869015269 %
Max(PercRevUnreachable) in a function: 87.58620689655172 %
# > 25 % samples: 471 ( 0.1395104988314885 % samples )
... in 145 ( 0.27733680163724345 % functions )
```
Most of the reverse-unreachable regions come from invalid IR where it wouldn't be possible to construct a PostDomTree anyway.
I would like to commit this patch in the next week in order to be able to complete the work that depends on it before the end of my internship, so please don't wait long to voice your concerns :).
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, grosser, brzycki, davide, chandlerc, hfinkel
Reviewed By: dberlin
Subscribers: nhaehnle, javed.absar, kparzysz, uabelho, jlebar, hiraditya, llvm-commits, dberlin, david2050
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35851
llvm-svn: 310940
Try to avoid mutually exclusive features. Don't use
a real default GPU, and use a fake "generic". The goal
is to make it easier to see which set of features are
incompatible between feature strings.
Most of the test changes are due to random scheduling changes
from not having a default fullspeed model.
llvm-svn: 310258
Currently SI_IF results in a s_and_saveexec_b64 followed by s_xor_b64.
The xor is used to extract only the changed bits. In case of a simple
if region where the only use of that value is in the SI_END_CF to
restore the old exec mask, we can omit the xor and perform an or of
the exec mask with the original exec value saved by the
s_and_saveexec_b64.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35861
llvm-svn: 309185
-enable-si-insert-waitcnts=1 becomes the default
-enable-si-insert-waitcnts=0 to use old pass
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33730
llvm-svn: 304551
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
This commit also relied on r296812, which I just reverted. We should probably
apply it again, after the r296812 has been discussed and been reapplied in some
variant.
llvm-svn: 296820
Modify the test so that it is still testing something
closer to what it was intended to originally.
I think the original intent was to test the situation where
there was a branch on execz and then unconditional branch
required relaxing.With the change in r296539,
there was no longer and execz branch.
Change the test so that there is now an execz branch inserted.
There is no longer an unconditional branch after the execz branch,
so this might need to be tricked in some other way to keep that
there.
llvm-svn: 296574
Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally.
A trellis of the shape below:
A B
|\ /|
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
|/ \|
C D
would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify
trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an
increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more
predecessor blocks that all have the same successors.
because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises.
As an example consider the following CFG:
B D F H
/ \ / \ / \ / \
A---C---E---G---Ret
Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions).
The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret.
The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout
A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret
define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1: ; A
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1
optional1: ; B
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2: ; C
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2
optional2: ; D
call void @b()
br label %test3
test3: ; E
%tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4
%tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0
br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3
optional3: ; F
call void @c()
br label %test4
test4: ; G
%tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8
%tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0
br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4
optional4: ; H
call void @d()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
here is the layout after D27742:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; ... Prologue elided
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
; ... More prologue elided
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_3
b .LBB0_4
.LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_4
.LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_5
b .LBB0_6
.LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
b .LBB0_7
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret
ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload
addi 1, 1, 112
ld 0, 16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a
trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts
of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication
accordingly.
This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have
back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating
positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings
of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts
handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also
improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks.
Here is the resulting concrete layout:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_5
.LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
bne 0, .LBB0_7
b .LBB0_8
.LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_2
.LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_3
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522
llvm-svn: 295223
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583
llvm-svn: 293716
This reverts commit ada6595a526d71df04988eb0a4b4fe84df398ded.
This needs a simple probability check because there are some cases where it is
not profitable.
llvm-svn: 291695
When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred
a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other
direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement
as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27742
llvm-svn: 291609
The structured CFG is just an aid to inserting exec
mask modification instructions, once that is done
we don't really need it anymore. We also
do not analyze blocks with terminators that
modify exec, so this should only be impacting
true branches.
llvm-svn: 288744
Codegen prepare sinks comparisons close to a user is we have only one register
for conditions. For AMDGPU we have many SGPRs capable to hold vector conditions.
Changed BE to report we have many condition registers. That way IR LICM pass
would hoist an invariant comparison out of a loop and codegen prepare will not
sink it.
With that done a condition is calculated in one block and used in another.
Current behavior is to store workitem's condition in a VGPR using v_cndmask_b32
and then restore it with yet another v_cmp instruction from that v_cndmask's
result. To mitigate the issue a propagation of source SGPR pair in place of v_cmp
is implemented. Additional side effect of this is that we may consume less VGPRs
at a cost of more SGPRs in case if holding of multiple conditions is needed, and
that is a clear win in most cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26114
llvm-svn: 288053
addSchedBarrierDeps() is supposed to add use operands to the ExitSU
node. The current implementation adds uses for calls/barrier instruction
and the MBB live-outs in all other cases. The use
operands of conditional jump instructions were missed.
Also added code to macrofusion to set the latencies between nodes to
zero to avoid problems with the fusing nodes lingering around in the
pending list now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25140
llvm-svn: 286544
Codegen prepare sinks comparisons close to a user is we have only one register
for conditions. For AMDGPU we have many SGPRs capable to hold vector conditions.
Changed BE to report we have many condition registers. That way IR LICM pass
would hoist an invariant comparison out of a loop and codegen prepare will not
sink it.
With that done a condition is calculated in one block and used in another.
Current behavior is to store workitem's condition in a VGPR using v_cndmask
and then restore it with yet another v_cmp instruction from that v_cndmask's
result. To mitigate the issue a forward propagation of a v_cmp 64 bit result
to an user is implemented. Additional side effect of this is that we may
consume less VGPRs in a cost of more SGPRs in case if holding of multiple
conditions is needed, and that is a clear win in most cases.
llvm-svn: 286171
Francis Visoiu Mistrih