The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well. Issue was worklist/scheduling/taildup issue in layout.
Issue from 2nd rollback fixed, with 2 additional tests. Issue was
tail merging/loop info/tail-duplication causing issue with loops that share
a header block.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283619
This reverts commit 062ace9764953e9769142c1099281a345f9b6bdc.
Issue with loop info and block removal revealed by polly.
I have a fix for this issue already in another patch, I'll re-roll this
together with that fix, and a test case.
llvm-svn: 283292
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
Issue from previous rollback fixed, and a new test was added for that
case as well.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18226
llvm-svn: 283274
The tail duplication pass uses an assumed layout when making duplication
decisions. This is fine, but passes up duplication opportunities that
may arise when blocks are outlined. Because we want the updated CFG to
affect subsequent placement decisions, this change must occur during
placement.
In order to achieve this goal, TailDuplicationPass is split into a
utility class, TailDuplicator, and the pass itself. The pass delegates
nearly everything to the TailDuplicator object, except for looping over
the blocks in a function. This allows the same code to be used for tail
duplication in both places.
This change, in concert with outlining optional branches, allows
triangle shaped code to perform much better, esepecially when the
taken/untaken branches are correlated, as it creates a second spine when
the tests are small enough.
llvm-svn: 283164
This is prep work for allowing the threshold to be different during layout,
and to enforce a single threshold between merging and duplicating during
layout. No observable change intended.
llvm-svn: 279117
Do not reorder and move up a loop latch block before a loop header
when optimising for size because this will generate an extra
unconditional branch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22521
llvm-svn: 278840
The following pattern was being layed out poorly:
A
/ \
B C
/ \ / \
D E ? (Doesn't matter)
Where A->B is far more likely than A->C, and prob(B->D) = prob(B->E)
The current algorithm gives:
A,B,C,E (D goes on worklist)
It does this even if C has a frequency count of 0. This patch
adjusts the layout calculation so that if freq(B->E) >> freq(C->E)
then we go ahead and layout E rather than C. Fallthrough half the time
is better than fallthrough never, or fallthrough very rarely. The
resulting layout is:
A,B,E, (C and D are in a worklist)
llvm-svn: 277187
Document the new parameter and threshod computation
model. Also fix a bug when the threshold parameter
is set to be different from the default.
llvm-svn: 272749
Summary: With runtime profile, we have more confidence in branch probability, thus during basic block layout, we set a lower hot prob threshold so that blocks can be layouted optimally.
Reviewers: djasper, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20991
llvm-svn: 272729
Save machine function pointer so that
the reference does not need to be passed around.
This also gives other methods access to machine
function for information such as entry count etc.
llvm-svn: 272594
This is third patch to clean up the code.
Included in this patch:
1. Further unclutter trace/chain formation main routine;
2. Isolate the logic to compute global cost/conflict detection
into its own method;
3. Heavily document the selection algorithm;
4. Added helper hook to allow PGO specific logic to be
added in the future.
llvm-svn: 272582
This is second patch to clean up the code.
In this patch, the logic to determine block outlinining
is refactored and more comments are added.
llvm-svn: 272514
This is one of the patches to clean up the code so that
it is in a better form to make future enhancements easier.
In htis patch, the logic to collect viable successors are
extrated as a helper to unclutter the caller which gets very
large recenty. Also cleaned up BP adjustment code.
llvm-svn: 272482
This reapplies commit r271930, r271915, r271923. They hit a bug in
Thumb which is fixed in r272258 now.
The original message:
The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is not the
final layout optimized based on the branch probability. Generally, after
BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge.
This patch calls Tail Merging after MBP and calls MBP again if Tail Merging
merges anything.
llvm-svn: 272267
Summary:
Consider the following diamond CFG:
A
/ \
B C
\/
D
Suppose A->B and A->C have probabilities 81% and 19%. In block-placement, A->B is called a hot edge and the final placement should be ABDC. However, the current implementation outputs ABCD. This is because when choosing the next block of B, it checks if Freq(C->D) > Freq(B->D) * 20%, which is true (if Freq(A) = 100, then Freq(B->D) = 81, Freq(C->D) = 19, and 19 > 81*20%=16.2). Actually, we should use 25% instead of 20% as the probability here, so that we have 19 < 81*25%=20.25, and the desired ABDC layout will be generated.
Reviewers: djasper, davidxl
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20989
llvm-svn: 272203
The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is not the
final layout optimized based on the branch probability. Generally, after
BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge.
This patch calls Tail Merging after MBP and calls MBP again if Tail Merging
merges anything.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20276
llvm-svn: 271925
The benefits of this patch are
-- We call AnalyzeBranch() to optimize unanalyzable branches, but the result of
AnalyzeBranch() is not used. Now the result is useful.
-- Before the layout of all the MBBs is set, the result of AnalyzeBranch() is
not correct and needs to be fixed before using it to optimize the branch
conditions. Now this optimization is called after the layout, the code used
to fix the result of AnalyzeBranch() is not needed.
-- The branch condition of the last block is not optimized before. Now it is
optimized.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20177
llvm-svn: 270623
Currently cost based loop rotation algo can only be turned on with
two conditions: the function has real profile data, and -precise-rotation-cost
flag is turned on. This is not convenient for developers to experiment
when profile is not available. Add a new option to force the new
rotation algorithm -force-precise-rotation-cost
llvm-svn: 269266
After the layout of the basic blocks is set, the target may be able to get rid
of unconditional branches to fallthrough blocks that the generic code does not
catch. This happens any time TargetInstrInfo::AnalyzeBranch is not able to
analyze all the branches involved in the terminators sequence, while still
understanding a few of them.
In such situation, AnalyzeBranch can directly modify the branches if it has been
instructed to do so.
This patch takes advantage of that.
llvm-svn: 268328
The original commit was reverted because of a buildbot problem with LazyCallGraph::SCC handling (not related to the OptBisect handling).
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267231
This patch implements a optimization bisect feature, which will allow optimizations to be selectively disabled at compile time in order to track down test failures that are caused by incorrect optimizations.
The bisection is enabled using a new command line option (-opt-bisect-limit). Individual passes that may be skipped call the OptBisect object (via an LLVMContext) to see if they should be skipped based on the bisect limit. A finer level of control (disabling individual transformations) can be managed through an addition OptBisect method, but this is not yet used.
The skip checking in this implementation is based on (and replaces) the skipOptnoneFunction check. Where that check was being called, a new call has been inserted in its place which checks the bisect limit and the optnone attribute. A new function call has been added for module and SCC passes that behaves in a similar way.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19172
llvm-svn: 267022
Summary:
EHPad BB are not entered the classic way and therefor do not need to be placed after their predecessors. This patch make sure EHPad BB are not chosen amongst successors to form chains, and are selected as last resort when selecting the best candidate.
EHPad are scheduled in reverse probability order in order to have them flow into each others naturally.
Reviewers: chandlerc, majnemer, rafael, MatzeB, escha, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17625
llvm-svn: 265726
Summary: There are places in MachineBlockPlacement where a worklist is filled in pretty much identical way. The code is duplicated. This refactor it so that the same code is used in both scenarii.
Reviewers: chandlerc, majnemer, rafael, MatzeB, escha, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18077
llvm-svn: 263495
Kyle Butt