[LLVM part]
These patches rename the loop unrolling and loop vectorizer metadata
such that they have a common 'llvm.loop.' prefix. Metadata name
changes:
llvm.vectorizer.* => llvm.loop.vectorizer.*
llvm.loopunroll.* => llvm.loop.unroll.*
This was a suggestion from an earlier review
(http://reviews.llvm.org/D4090) which added the loop unrolling
metadata.
Patch by Mark Heffernan.
llvm-svn: 211710
The old method used by X86TTI to determine partial-unrolling thresholds was
messy (because it worked by testing target features), and also would not
correctly identify the target CPU if certain target features were disabled.
After some discussions on IRC with Chandler et al., it was decided that the
processor scheduling models were the right containers for this information
(because it is often tied to special uop dispatch-buffer sizes).
This does represent a small functionality change:
- For generic x86-64 (which uses the SB model and, thus, will get some
unrolling).
- For AMD cores (because they still currently use the SB scheduling model)
- For Haswell (based on benchmarking by Louis Gerbarg, it was decided to bump
the default threshold to 50; we're working on a test case for this).
Otherwise, nothing has changed for any other targets. The logic, however, has
been moved into BasicTTI, so other targets may now also opt-in to this
functionality simply by setting LoopMicroOpBufferSize in their processor
model definitions.
llvm-svn: 208289
This provides an initial implementation of getUnrollingPreferences for x86.
getUnrollingPreferences is used by the generic (concatenation) unroller, which
is distinct from the unrolling done by the loop vectorizer. Many modern x86
cores have some kind of uop cache and loop-stream detector (LSD) used to
efficiently dispatch small loops, and taking full advantage of this requires
unrolling small loops (small here means 10s of uops).
These caches also have limits on the number of taken branches in the loop, and
so we also cap the loop unrolling factor based on the maximum "depth" of the
loop. This is currently calculated with a partial DFS traversal (partial
because it will stop early if the path length grows too much). This is still an
approximation, and one that is both conservative (because it does not account
for branches eliminated via block placement) and optimistic (because it is only
recording the maximum depth over minimum paths). Nevertheless, because the
loops that fit in these uop caches are so small, it is not clear how much the
details matter.
The original set of patches posted for review produced the following test-suite
performance results (from the TSVC benchmark) at that time:
ControlLoops-dbl - 13% speedup
ControlLoops-flt - 15% speedup
Reductions-dbl - 7.5% speedup
llvm-svn: 205348
Eli Bendersky