Currently, this pass only focuses on *trivial* loop unswitching. At that
reduced problem it remains significantly better than the current loop
unswitch:
- Old pass is worse than cubic complexity. New pass is (I think) linear.
- New pass is much simpler in its design by focusing on full unswitching. (See
below for details on this).
- New pass doesn't carry state for thresholds between pass iterations.
- New pass doesn't carry state for correctness (both miscompile and
infloop) between pass iterations.
- New pass produces substantially better code after unswitching.
- New pass can handle more trivial unswitch cases.
- New pass doesn't recompute the dominator tree for the entire function
and instead incrementally updates it.
I've ported all of the trivial unswitching test cases from the old pass
to the new one to make sure that major functionality isn't lost in the
process. For several of the test cases I've worked to improve the
precision and rigor of the CHECKs, but for many I've just updated them
to handle the new IR produced.
My initial motivation was the fact that the old pass carried state in
very unreliable ways between pass iterations, and these mechansims were
incompatible with the new pass manager. However, I discovered many more
improvements to make along the way.
This pass makes two very significant assumptions that enable most of these
improvements:
1) Focus on *full* unswitching -- that is, completely removing whatever
control flow construct is being unswitched from the loop. In the case
of trivial unswitching, this means removing the trivial (exiting)
edge. In non-trivial unswitching, this means removing the branch or
switch itself. This is in opposition to *partial* unswitching where
some part of the unswitched control flow remains in the loop. Partial
unswitching only really applies to switches and to folded branches.
These are very similar to full unrolling and partial unrolling. The
full form is an effective canonicalization, the partial form needs
a complex cost model, cannot be iterated, isn't canonicalizing, and
should be a separate pass that runs very late (much like unrolling).
2) Leverage LLVM's Loop machinery to the fullest. The original unswitch
dates from a time when a great deal of LLVM's loop infrastructure was
missing, ineffective, and/or unreliable. As a consequence, a lot of
complexity was added which we no longer need.
With these two overarching principles, I think we can build a fast and
effective unswitcher that fits in well in the new PM and in the
canonicalization pipeline. Some of the remaining functionality around
partial unswitching may not be relevant today (not many test cases or
benchmarks I can find) but if they are I'd like to add support for them
as a separate layer that runs very late in the pipeline.
Purely to make reviewing and introducing this code more manageable, I've
split this into first a trivial-unswitch-only pass and in the next patch
I'll add support for full non-trivial unswitching against a *fixed*
threshold, exactly like full unrolling. I even plan to re-use the
unrolling thresholds, as these are incredibly similar cost tradeoffs:
we're cloning a loop body in order to end up with simplified control
flow. We should only do that when the total growth is reasonably small.
One of the biggest changes with this pass compared to the previous one
is that previously, each individual trivial exiting edge from a switch
was unswitched separately as a branch. Now, we unswitch the entire
switch at once, with cases going to the various destinations. This lets
us unswitch multiple exiting edges in a single operation and also avoids
numerous extremely bad behaviors, where we would introduce 1000s of
branches to test for thousands of possible values, all of which would
take the exact same exit path bypassing the loop. Now we will use
a switch with 1000s of cases that can be efficiently lowered into
a jumptable. This avoids relying on somehow forming a switch out of the
branches or getting horrible code if that fails for any reason.
Another significant change is that this pass actively updates the CFG
based on unswitching. For trivial unswitching, this is actually very
easy because of the definition of loop simplified form. Doing this makes
the code coming out of loop unswitch dramatically more friendly. We
still should run loop-simplifycfg (at the least) after this to clean up,
but it will have to do a lot less work.
Finally, this pass makes much fewer attempts to simplify instructions
based on the unswitch. Something like loop-instsimplify, instcombine, or
GVN can be used to do increasingly powerful simplifications based on the
now dominating predicate. The old simplifications are things that
something like loop-instsimplify should get today or a very, very basic
loop-instcombine could get. Keeping that logic separate is a big
simplifying technique.
Most of the code in this pass that isn't in the old one has to do with
achieving specific goals:
- Updating the dominator tree as we go
- Unswitching all cases in a switch in a single step.
I think it is still shorter than just the trivial unswitching code in
the old pass despite having this functionality.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32409
llvm-svn: 301576
The first variant contains all current transformations except
transforming switches into lookup tables. The second variant
contains all current transformations.
The switch-to-lookup-table conversion results in code that is more
difficult to analyze and optimize by other passes. Most importantly,
it can inhibit Dead Code Elimination. As such it is often beneficial to
only apply this transformation very late. A common example is inlining,
which can often result in range restrictions for the switch expression.
Changes in execution time according to LNT:
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/fp-convert +3.03%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASC_Sequoia/CrystalMk/CrystalMk -11.20%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/perimeter/perimeter -10.43%
and a couple of smaller changes. For perimeter it also results 2.6%
a smaller binary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30333
llvm-svn: 298799
This patch introduces guard based loop predication optimization. The new LoopPredication pass tries to convert loop variant range checks to loop invariant by widening checks across loop iterations. For example, it will convert
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(i < len);
...
}
to
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
guard(n - 1 < len);
...
}
After this transformation the condition of the guard is loop invariant, so loop-unswitch can later unswitch the loop by this condition which basically predicates the loop by the widened condition:
if (n - 1 < len)
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
...
}
else
deoptimize
This patch relies on an NFC change to make ScalarEvolution::isMonotonicPredicate public (revision 293062).
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29034
llvm-svn: 293064
The code have been developed by Daniel Berlin over the years, and
the new implementation goal is that of addressing shortcomings of
the current GVN infrastructure, i.e. long compile time for large
testcases, lack of phi predication, no load/store value numbering
etc...
The current code just implements the "core" GVN algorithm, although
other pieces (load coercion, phi handling, predicate system) are
already implemented in a branch out of tree. Once the core is stable,
we'll start adding pieces on top of the base framework.
The test currently living in test/Transform/NewGVN are a copy
of the ones in GVN, with proper `XFAIL` (missing features in NewGVN).
A flag will be added in a future commit to enable NewGVN, so that
interested parties can exercise this code easily.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26224
llvm-svn: 290346
Summary: LICM may hoist instructions to preheader speculatively. Before code generation, we need to sink down the hoisted instructions inside to loop if it's beneficial. This pass is a reverse of LICM: looking at instructions in preheader and sinks the instruction to basic blocks inside the loop body if basic block frequency is smaller than the preheader frequency.
Reviewers: hfinkel, davidxl, chandlerc
Subscribers: anna, modocache, mgorny, beanz, reames, dberlin, chandlerc, mcrosier, junbuml, sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22778
llvm-svn: 285308
Previous change broke the C API for creating an EarlyCSE pass w/
MemorySSA by adding a bool parameter to control whether MemorySSA was
used or not. This broke the OCaml bindings. Instead, change the old C
API entry point back and add a new one to request an EarlyCSE pass with
MemorySSA.
llvm-svn: 280379
Summary:
Use MemorySSA, if requested, to do less conservative memory dependency
checking.
This change doesn't enable the MemorySSA enhanced EarlyCSE in the
default pipelines, so should be NFC.
Reviewers: dberlin, sanjoy, reames, majnemer
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19821
llvm-svn: 280279
Summary:
Refactor the existing support into a LoopDataPrefetch implementation
class and a LoopDataPrefetchLegacyPass class that invokes it.
Add a new LoopDataPrefetchPass for the new pass manager that utilizes
the LoopDataPrefetch implementation class.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, nemanjai, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23483
llvm-svn: 278591
Summary:
The direct motivation for the port is to ensure that the OptRemarkEmitter
tests work with the new PM.
This remains a function pass because we not only create multiple loops
but could also version the original loop.
In the test I need to invoke opt
with -passes='require<aa>,loop-distribute'. LoopDistribute does not
directly depend on AA however LAA does. LAA uses getCachedResult so
I *think* we need manually pull in 'aa'.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22437
llvm-svn: 275811
Summary: Convert LoopInstSimplify to new PM. Unfortunately there is no exisiting unittest for this pass.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: silvas, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22280
llvm-svn: 275576
This pass hoists duplicated computations in the program. The primary goal of
gvn-hoist is to reduce the size of functions before inline heuristics to reduce
the total cost of function inlining.
Pass written by Sebastian Pop, Aditya Kumar, Xiaoyu Hu, and Brian Rzycki.
Important algorithmic contributions by Daniel Berlin under the form of reviews.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19338
llvm-svn: 275561
Summary: Port Dead Loop Deletion Pass to the new pass manager.
Reviewers: silvas, davide
Subscribers: llvm-commits, sanjoy, mcrosier
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21483
llvm-svn: 275453
This pass hoists duplicated computations in the program. The primary goal of
gvn-hoist is to reduce the size of functions before inline heuristics to reduce
the total cost of function inlining.
Pass written by Sebastian Pop, Aditya Kumar, Xiaoyu Hu, and Brian Rzycki.
Important algorithmic contributions by Daniel Berlin under the form of reviews.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19338
llvm-svn: 275401
This pass hoists duplicated computations in the program. The primary goal of
gvn-hoist is to reduce the size of functions before inline heuristics to reduce
the total cost of function inlining.
Pass written by Sebastian Pop, Aditya Kumar, Xiaoyu Hu, and Brian Rzycki.
Important algorithmic contributions by Daniel Berlin under the form of reviews.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19338
llvm-svn: 274305
This is indeed a much cleaner approach (thanks to Daniel Berlin
for pointing out), and also David/Sean for review.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21454
llvm-svn: 273032
Daniel Berlin expressed some real concerns about the port and proposed
and alternative approach. I'll revert this for now while working on a
new patch, which I hope to put up for review shortly. Sorry for the churn.
llvm-svn: 272925
Nearly all the changes to this pass have been done while maintaining and
updating other parts of LLVM. LLVM has had another pass, SROA, which
has superseded ScalarReplAggregates for quite some time.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21316
llvm-svn: 272737
The need for all these Lookup* functions is just because of calls to
getAnalysis inside methods (i.e. not at the top level) of the
runOnFunction method. They should be straightforward to clean up when
the old PM is gone.
llvm-svn: 272615
Summary:
Implement guard widening in LLVM. Description from GuardWidening.cpp:
The semantics of the `@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic lets LLVM
transform it so that it fails more often that it did before the
transform. This optimization is called "widening" and can be used hoist
and common runtime checks in situations like these:
```
%cmp0 = 7 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
%cmp1 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp1) [ "deopt"(...) ]
...
```
to
```
%cmp0 = 9 u< Length
call @llvm.experimental.guard(i1 %cmp0) [ "deopt"(...) ]
call @unknown_side_effects()
...
```
If `%cmp0` is false, `@llvm.experimental.guard` will "deoptimize" back
to a generic implementation of the same function, which will have the
correct semantics from that point onward. It is always _legal_ to
deoptimize (so replacing `%cmp0` with false is "correct"), though it may
not always be profitable to do so.
NB! This pass is a work in progress. It hasn't been tuned to be
"production ready" yet. It is known to have quadriatic running time and
will not scale to large numbers of guards
Reviewers: reames, atrick, bogner, apilipenko, nlewycky
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20143
llvm-svn: 269997
Summary:
As discussed on llvm-dev[1].
This change adds the basic boilerplate code around having this intrinsic
in LLVM:
- Changes in Intrinsics.td, and the IR Verifier
- A lowering pass to lower @llvm.experimental.guard to normal
control flow
- Inliner support
[1]: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-February/095523.html
Reviewers: reames, atrick, chandlerc, rnk, JosephTremoulet, echristo
Subscribers: mcrosier, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18527
llvm-svn: 264976
tests to run GVN in both modes.
This is mostly the boring refactoring just like SROA and other complex
transformation passes. There is some trickiness in that GVN's
ValueNumber class requires hand holding to get to compile cleanly. I'm
open to suggestions about a better pattern there, but I tried several
before settling on this. I was trying to balance my desire to sink as
much implementation detail into the source file as possible without
introducing overly many layers of abstraction.
Much like with SROA, the design of this system is made somewhat more
cumbersome by the need to support both pass managers without duplicating
the significant state and logic of the pass. The same compromise is
struck here.
I've also left a FIXME in a doxygen comment as the GVN pass seems to
have pretty woeful documentation within it. I'd like to submit this with
the FIXME and let those more deeply familiar backfill the information
here now that we have a nice place in an interface to put that kind of
documentaiton.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18019
llvm-svn: 263208
Summary:
Since this is an IR pass it's nice to be able to write tests without
llc. This is the counterpart of the llc test under
CodeGen/PowerPC/loop-data-prefetch.ll.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17464
llvm-svn: 261578
Summary:
When alias analysis is uncertain about the aliasing between any two accesses,
it will return MayAlias. This uncertainty from alias analysis restricts LICM
from proceeding further. In cases where alias analysis is uncertain we might
use loop versioning as an alternative.
Loop Versioning will create a version of the loop with aggressive aliasing
assumptions in addition to the original with conservative (default) aliasing
assumptions. The version of the loop making aggressive aliasing assumptions
will have all the memory accesses marked as no-alias. These two versions of
loop will be preceded by a memory runtime check. This runtime check consists
of bound checks for all unique memory accessed in loop, and it ensures the
lack of memory aliasing. The result of the runtime check determines which of
the loop versions is executed: If the runtime check detects any memory
aliasing, then the original loop is executed. Otherwise, the version with
aggressive aliasing assumptions is used.
The pass is off by default and can be enabled with command line option
-enable-loop-versioning-licm.
Reviewers: hfinkel, anemet, chatur01, reames
Subscribers: MatzeB, grosser, joker.eph, sanjoy, javed.absar, sbaranga,
llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9151
llvm-svn: 259986
Chandler Carruth