This allows later passes (in particular InstCombine) to optimize more
cases.
One that's important to us is `memcmp(p, q, constant) < 0` and memcmp(p, q, constant) > 0.
llvm-svn: 364412
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358607
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This patch adds a basic loop fusion pass. It will fuse loops that conform to the
following 4 conditions:
1. Adjacent (no code between them)
2. Control flow equivalent (if one loop executes, the other loop executes)
3. Identical bounds (both loops iterate the same number of iterations)
4. No negative distance dependencies between the loop bodies.
The pass does not make any changes to the IR to create opportunities for fusion.
Instead, it checks if the necessary conditions are met and if so it fuses two
loops together.
The pass has not been added to the pass pipeline yet, and thus is not enabled by
default. It can be run stand alone using the -loop-fusion option.
Phabricator: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55851
llvm-svn: 358543
Introduces a pass that provides default lowering strategy for the
`experimental.widenable.condition` intrinsic, replacing all its uses with
`i1 true`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56096
Reviewed By: reames
llvm-svn: 352739
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
This patch introduces a new instinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable_condition`
that allows explicit representation for guards. It is an alternative to using
`@llvm.experimental.guard` intrinsic that does not contain implicit control flow.
We keep finding places where `@llvm.experimental.guard` is not supported or
treated too conservatively, and there are 2 reasons to that:
- `@llvm.experimental.guard` has memory write side effect to model implicit control flow,
and this sometimes confuses passes and analyzes that work with memory;
- Not all passes and analysis are aware of the semantics of guards. These passes treat them
as regular throwing call and have no idea that the condition of guard may be used to prove
something. One well-known place which had caused us troubles in the past is explicit loop
iteration count calculation in SCEV. Another example is new loop unswitching which is not
aware of guards. Whenever a new pass appears, we potentially have this problem there.
Rather than go and fix all these places (and commit to keep track of them and add support
in future), it seems more reasonable to leverage the existing optimizer's logic as much as possible.
The only significant difference between guards and regular explicit branches is that guard's condition
can be widened. It means that a guard contains (explicitly or implicitly) a `deopt` block successor,
and it is always legal to go there no matter what the guard condition is. The other successor is
a guarded block, and it is only legal to go there if the condition is true.
This patch introduces a new explicit form of guards alternative to `@llvm.experimental.guard`
intrinsic. Now a widenable guard can be represented in the CFG explicitly like this:
%widenable_condition = call i1 @llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()
%new_condition = and i1 %cond, %widenable_condition
br i1 %new_condition, label %guarded, label %deopt
guarded:
; Guarded instructions
deopt:
call type @llvm.experimental.deoptimize(<args...>) [ "deopt"(<deopt_args...>) ]
The new intrinsic `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition` has semantics of an
`undef`, but the intrinsic prevents the optimizer from folding it early. This form
should exploit all optimization boons provided to `br` instuction, and it still can be
widened by replacing the result of `@llvm.experimental.widenable.condition()`
with `and` with any arbitrary boolean value (as long as the branch that is taken when
it is `false` has a deopt and has no side-effects).
For more motivation, please check llvm-dev discussion "[llvm-dev] Giving up using
implicit control flow in guards".
This patch introduces this new intrinsic with respective LangRef changes and a pass
that converts old-style guards (expressed as intrinsics) into the new form.
The naming discussion is still ungoing. Merging this to unblock further items. We can
later change the name of this intrinsic.
Reviewed By: reames, fedor.sergeev, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51207
llvm-svn: 348593
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder Loop
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 336062
and diretory.
Also cleans up all the associated naming to be consistent and removes
the public access to the pass ID which was unused in LLVM.
Also runs clang-format over parts that changed, which generally cleans
up a bunch of formatting.
This is in preparation for doing some internal cleanups to the pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47352
llvm-svn: 336028
This is a simple implementation of the unroll-and-jam classical loop
optimisation.
The basic idea is that we take an outer loop of the form:
for i..
ForeBlocks(i)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
AftBlocks(i)
Instead of doing normal inner or outer unrolling, we unroll as follows:
for i... i+=2
ForeBlocks(i)
ForeBlocks(i+1)
for j..
SubLoopBlocks(i, j)
SubLoopBlocks(i+1, j)
AftBlocks(i)
AftBlocks(i+1)
Remainder
So we have unrolled the outer loop, then jammed the two inner loops into
one. This can lead to a simpler inner loop if memory accesses can be shared
between the now-jammed loops.
To do this we have to prove that this is all safe, both for the memory
accesses (using dependence analysis) and that ForeBlocks(i+1) can move before
AftBlocks(i) and SubLoopBlocks(i, j).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41953
llvm-svn: 333358
The plan had always been to move towards using this rather than so much
in-pass simplification within the loop pipeline, but we never got around
to it.... until only a couple months after it was removed due to disuse.
=/
This commit is just a pure revert of the removal. I will add tests and
do some basic cleanup in follow-up commits. Then I'll wire it into the
loop pass pipeline.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47353
llvm-svn: 333250
LoopInstSimplify is unused and untested. Reading through the commit
history the pass also seems to have a high maintenance burden.
It would be best to retire the pass for now. It should be easy to
recover if we need something similar in the future.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D44053
llvm-svn: 327329
The core idea is to (re-)introduce some redundancies where their cost is
hidden by the cost of materializing immediates for constant operands of
PHI nodes. When the cost of the redundancies is covered by this,
avoiding materializing the immediate has numerous benefits:
1) Less register pressure
2) Potential for further folding / combining
3) Potential for more efficient instructions due to immediate operand
As a motivating example, consider the remarkably different cost on x86
of a SHL instruction with an immediate operand versus a register
operand.
This pattern turns up surprisingly frequently, but is somewhat rarely
obvious as a significant performance problem.
The pass is entirely target independent, but it does rely on the target
cost model in TTI to decide when to speculate things around the PHI
node. I've included x86-focused tests, but any target that sets up its
immediate cost model should benefit from this pass.
There is probably more that can be done in this space, but the pass
as-is is enough to get some important performance on our internal
benchmarks, and should be generally performance neutral, but help with
more extensive benchmarking is always welcome.
One awkward part is that this pass has to be scheduled after
*everything* that can eliminate these kinds of redundancies. This
includes SimplifyCFG, GVN, etc. I'm open to suggestions about better
places to put this. We could in theory make it part of the codegen pass
pipeline, but there doesn't really seem to be a good reason for that --
it isn't "lowering" in any sense and only relies on pretty standard cost
model based TTI queries, so it seems to fit well with the "optimization"
pipeline model. Still, further thoughts on the pipeline position are
welcome.
I've also only implemented this in the new pass manager. If folks are
very interested, I can try to add it to the old PM as well, but I didn't
really see much point (my use case is already switched over to the new
PM).
I've tested this pretty heavily without issue. A wide range of
benchmarks internally show no change outside the noise, and I don't see
any significant changes in SPEC either. However, the size class
computation in tcmalloc is substantially improved by this, which turns
into a 2% to 4% win on the hottest path through tcmalloc for us, so
there are definitely important cases where this is going to make
a substantial difference.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467
llvm-svn: 319164
This recommit r317351 after fixing a buildbot failure.
Original commit message:
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
llvm-svn: 317362
Summary:
This change add a pass which tries to split a call-site to pass
more constrained arguments if its argument is predicated in the control flow
so that we can expose better context to the later passes (e.g, inliner, jump
threading, or IPA-CP based function cloning, etc.).
As of now we support two cases :
1) If a call site is dominated by an OR condition and if any of its arguments
are predicated on this OR condition, try to split the condition with more
constrained arguments. For example, in the code below, we try to split the
call site since we can predicate the argument (ptr) based on the OR condition.
Split from :
if (!ptr || c)
callee(ptr);
to :
if (!ptr)
callee(null ptr) // set the known constant value
else if (c)
callee(nonnull ptr) // set non-null attribute in the argument
2) We can also split a call-site based on constant incoming values of a PHI
For example,
from :
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB0 ], [ 1, %BB1 ]
call void @bar(i32 %p)
to
BB0:
%c = icmp eq i32 %i1, %i2
br i1 %c, label %BB2-split0, label %BB1
BB1:
br label %BB2-split1
BB2-split0:
call void @bar(i32 0)
br label %BB2
BB2-split1:
call void @bar(i32 1)
br label %BB2
BB2:
%p = phi i32 [ 0, %BB2-split0 ], [ 1, %BB2-split1 ]
Reviewers: davidxl, huntergr, chandlerc, mcrosier, eraman, davide
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sdesmalen, ashutosh.nema, fhahn, mssimpso, aemerson, mgorny, mehdi_amini, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39137
llvm-svn: 317351
undefined reference to `llvm::TargetPassConfig::ID' on
clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage
This reverts commit eea333c33fa73ad225ef28607795984829f65688.
llvm-svn: 317213
Summary:
This is mostly a noop (most of the test diffs are renamed blocks).
There are a few temporary register renames (eax<->ecx) and a few blocks are
shuffled around.
See the discussion in PR33325 for more details.
Reviewers: spatel
Subscribers: mgorny
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39456
llvm-svn: 317211
This is intended to be a superset of the functionality from D31037 (EarlyCSE) but implemented
as an independent pass, so there's no stretching of scope and feature creep for an existing pass.
I also proposed a weaker version of this for SimplifyCFG in D30910. And I initially had almost
this same functionality as an addition to CGP in the motivating example of PR31028:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31028
The advantage of positioning this ahead of SimplifyCFG in the pass pipeline is that it can allow
more flattening. But it needs to be after passes (InstCombine) that could sink a div/rem and
undo the hoisting that is done here.
Decomposing remainder may allow removing some code from the backend (PPC and possibly others).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D37121
llvm-svn: 312862
comparisons into memcmp.
Thanks to recent improvements in the LLVM codegen, the memcmp is typically
inlined as a chain of efficient hardware comparisons.
This typically benefits C++ member or nonmember operator==().
For now this is disabled by default until:
- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33329 is complete
- Benchmarks show that this is always useful.
Differential Revision:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33987
llvm-svn: 312315
This patch provides an initial prototype for a pass that sinks instructions based on GVN information, similar to GVNHoist. It is not yet ready for commiting but I've uploaded it to gather some initial thoughts.
This pass attempts to sink instructions into successors, reducing static
instruction count and enabling if-conversion.
We use a variant of global value numbering to decide what can be sunk.
Consider:
[ %a1 = add i32 %b, 1 ] [ %c1 = add i32 %d, 1 ]
[ %a2 = xor i32 %a1, 1 ] [ %c2 = xor i32 %c1, 1 ]
\ /
[ %e = phi i32 %a2, %c2 ]
[ add i32 %e, 4 ]
GVN would number %a1 and %c1 differently because they compute different
results - the VN of an instruction is a function of its opcode and the
transitive closure of its operands. This is the key property for hoisting
and CSE.
What we want when sinking however is for a numbering that is a function of
the *uses* of an instruction, which allows us to answer the question "if I
replace %a1 with %c1, will it contribute in an equivalent way to all
successive instructions?". The (new) PostValueTable class in GVN provides this
mapping.
This pass has some shown really impressive improvements especially for codesize already on internal benchmarks, so I have high hopes it can replace all the sinking logic in SimplifyCFG.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24805
llvm-svn: 303850
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
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 latter to the Transforms library.
While the loop PM uses an analysis to form the IR units, the current
plan is to have the PM itself establish and enforce both loop simplified
form and LCSSA. This would be a layering violation in the analysis
library.
Fundamentally, the idea behind the loop PM is to *transform* loops in
addition to running passes over them, so it really seemed like the most
natural place to sink this was into the transforms library.
We can't just move *everything* because we also have loop analyses that
rely on a subset of the invariants. So this patch splits the the loop
infrastructure into the analysis management that has to be part of the
analysis library, and the transform-aware pass manager.
This also required splitting the loop analyses' printer passes out to
the transforms library, which makes sense to me as running these will
transform the code into LCSSA in theory.
I haven't split the unittest though because testing one component
without the other seems nearly intractable.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28452
llvm-svn: 291662
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
This patch updates a bunch of places where add_dependencies was being explicitly called to add dependencies on intrinsics_gen to instead use the DEPENDS named parameter. This cleanup is needed for a patch I'm working on to add a dependency debugging mode to the build system.
llvm-svn: 287206
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
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
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
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
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
This patch is part of the work to make PPCLoopDataPrefetch
target-independent
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/92758).
Obviously the pass still only used from PPC at this point. Subsequent
patches will start driving this from ARM64 as well.
Due to the previous patch most lines should show up as moved lines.
llvm-svn: 261265
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
Loop transformations can sometimes fail because the loop, while in
valid rotated LCSSA form, is not in a canonical CFG form. This is
an extremely simple pass that just merges obviously redundant
blocks, which can be used to fix some known failure cases. In the
future, it may be enhanced with more cases (and have code shared with
SimplifyCFG).
This allows us to run LoopSimplifyCFG -> LoopRotate -> LoopUnroll,
so that SimplifyCFG cleans up the loop before Rotate tries to run.
Not currently used in the pass manager, since this pass doesn't do
anything unless you can hook it up in an LPM with other loop passes.
It'll be added once Chandler cleans up things to allow this.
Tested in a custom pipeline out of tree to confirm it works in
practice (in addition to the included trivial test).
llvm-svn: 259256
Summary:
The goal of this pass is to perform store-to-load forwarding across the
backedge of a loop. E.g.:
for (i)
A[i + 1] = A[i] + B[i]
=>
T = A[0]
for (i)
T = T + B[i]
A[i + 1] = T
The pass relies on loop dependence analysis via LoopAccessAnalisys to
find opportunities of loop-carried dependences with a distance of one
between a store and a load. Since it's using LoopAccessAnalysis, it was
easy to also add support for versioning away may-aliasing intervening
stores that would otherwise prevent this transformation.
This optimization is also performed by Load-PRE in GVN without the
option of multi-versioning. As was discussed with Daniel Berlin in
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9548, this is inferior to a more loop-aware
solution applied here. Hopefully, we will be able to remove some
complexity from GVN/MemorySSA as a consequence.
In the long run, we may want to extend this pass (or create a new one if
there is little overlap) to also eliminate loop-indepedent redundant
loads and store that *require* versioning due to may-aliasing
intervening stores/loads. I have some motivating cases for store
elimination. My plan right now is to wait for MemorySSA to come online
first rather than using memdep for this.
The main motiviation for this pass is the 456.hmmer loop in SPECint2006
where after distributing the original loop and vectorizing the top part,
we are left with the critical path exposed in the bottom loop. Being
able to promote the memory dependence into a register depedence (even
though the HW does perform store-to-load fowarding as well) results in a
major gain (~20%). This gain also transfers over to x86: it's
around 8-10%.
Right now the pass is off by default and can be enabled
with -enable-loop-load-elim. On the LNT testsuite, there are two
performance changes (negative number -> improvement):
1. -28% in Polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/dynprog: the length of the
critical paths is reduced
2. +2% in Polybench/stencils/adi: Unfortunately, I couldn't reproduce this
outside of LNT
The pass is scheduled after the loop vectorizer (which is after loop
distribution). The rational is to try to reuse LAA state, rather than
recomputing it. The order between LV and LLE is not critical because
normally LV does not touch scalar st->ld forwarding cases where
vectorizing would inhibit the CPU's st->ld forwarding to kick in.
LoopLoadElimination requires LAA to provide the full set of dependences
(including forward dependences). LAA is known to omit loop-independent
dependences in certain situations. The big comment before
removeDependencesFromMultipleStores explains why this should not occur
for the cases that we're interested in.
Reviewers: dberlin, hfinkel
Subscribers: junbuml, dberlin, mssimpso, rengolin, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13259
llvm-svn: 252017
Eventually, we will need sample profiles to be incorporated into the
inliner's cost models. To do this, we need the sample profile pass to
be a module pass.
This patch makes no functional changes beyond the mechanical adjustments
needed to run SampleProfile as a module pass.
llvm-svn: 245940
Summary:
This is a pass for speculative execution of instructions for simple if-then (triangle) control flow. It's aimed at GPUs, but could perhaps be used in other contexts. Enabling this pass gives us a 1.0% geomean improvement on Google benchmark suites, with one benchmark improving 33%.
Credit goes to Jingyue Wu for writing an earlier version of this pass.
Patched by Bjarke Roune.
Test Plan:
This patch adds a set of tests in test/Transforms/SpeculativeExecution/spec.ll
The pass is controlled by a flag which defaults to having the pass not run.
Reviewers: eliben, dberlin, meheff, jingyue, hfinkel
Reviewed By: jingyue, hfinkel
Subscribers: majnemer, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D9360
llvm-svn: 237459
Summary:
This implements the initial version as was proposed earlier this year
(http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-January/080462.html).
Since then Loop Access Analysis was split out from the Loop Vectorizer
and was made into a separate analysis pass. Loop Distribution becomes
the second user of this analysis.
The pass is off by default and can be enabled
with -enable-loop-distribution. There is currently no notion of
profitability; if there is a loop with dependence cycles, the pass will
try to split them off from other memory operations into a separate loop.
I decided to remove the control-dependence calculation from this first
version. This and the issues with the PDT are actively discussed so it
probably makes sense to treat it separately. Right now I just mark all
terminator instruction required which keeps identical CFGs for each
distributed loop. This seems to be working pretty well for 456.hmmer
where even though there is an empty if-then block in the distributed
loop initially, it gets completely removed.
The pass keeps DominatorTree and LoopInfo updated. I've tested this
with -loop-distribute-verify with the testsuite where we distribute ~90
loops. SimplifyLoop is violated in some cases and I have a FIXME
covering this.
Reviewers: hfinkel, nadav, aschwaighofer
Reviewed By: aschwaighofer
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8831
llvm-svn: 237358
Clement Courbet