We do not support splitting cleanuppad or catchswitches. This is
problematic for passes which assume that a loop is in loop simplify
form (the loop would have a dedicated exit block instead of sharing it).
While it isn't great that we don't support this for cleanups, we still
cannot make loop-simplify form an assertable precondition because
indirectbr will also disable these sorts of CFG cleanups.
This fixes PR28132.
llvm-svn: 272739
with user specified count has been applied.
Summary:
Previously SetLoopAlreadyUnrolled() set the disable pragma only if
there was some loop metadata.
Now it set the pragma in all cases. This helps to prevent multiple
unroll when -unroll-count=N is given.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20765
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 272195
In r270478, where I enabled the new heuristic I posted testing results,
which I got when explicitly passed the thresholds values via CL options.
However, setting the CL options init-values is not enough to change the
default values of thresholds, so I'm changing them in another place now.
llvm-svn: 271615
Summary:
Unroll factor (Count) calculations moved to a new function.
Early exits on pragma and "-unroll-count" defined factor added.
New type of unrolling "Force" introduced (previously used implicitly).
New unroll preference "AllowRemainder" introduced and set "true" by default.
(should be set to false for architectures that suffers from it).
Reviewers: hfinkel, mzolotukhin, zzheng
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19553
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 271071
Condition might be simplified to a Constant, but it doesn't have to be
ConstantInt, so we should dyn_cast, instead of cast.
This fixes PR27886.
llvm-svn: 270924
Summary:
This patch turns on LoopUnrollAnalyzer by default. To mitigate compile
time regressions, I chose very conservative thresholds for now. Later we
can make them more aggressive, but it might require being smarter in
which loops we're optimizing. E.g. currently the biggest issue is that
with more agressive thresholds we unroll many cold loops, which
increases compile time for no performance benefit (performance of those
loops is improved, but it doesn't matter since they are cold).
Test results for compile time(using 4 samples to reduce noise):
```
MultiSource/Benchmarks/VersaBench/ecbdes/ecbdes 5.19%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Polybench/medley/reg_detect/reg_detect 4.19%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/fourinarow/fourinarow 3.39%
MultiSource/Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.47%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Fhourstones-3_1/fhourstones3_1 -6.06%
```
I didn't see any performance changes in the testsuite, but it improves
some internal tests.
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20482
llvm-svn: 270478
Summary:
...loop after the last iteration.
This is really hard to do correctly. The core problem is that we need to
model liveness through the induction PHIs from iteration to iteration in
order to get the correct results, and we need to correctly de-duplicate
the common subgraphs of instructions feeding some subset of the
induction PHIs. All of this can be driven either from a side effect at
some iteration or from the loop values used after the loop finishes.
This patch implements this by storing the forward-propagating analysis
of each instruction in a cache to recall whether it was free and whether
it has become live and thus counted toward the total unroll cost. Then,
at each sink for a value in the loop, we recursively walk back through
every value that feeds the sink, including looping back through the
iterations as needed, until we have marked the entire input graph as
live. Because we cache this, we never visit instructions more than twice
-- once when we analyze them and put them into the cache, and once when
we count their cost towards the unrolled loop. Also, because the cache
is only two bits and because we are dealing with relatively small
iteration counts, we can store all of this very densely in memory to
avoid this from becoming an excessively slow analysis.
The code here is still pretty gross. I would appreciate suggestions
about better ways to factor or split this up, I've stared too long at
the algorithmic side to really have a good sense of what the design
should probably look at.
Also, it might seem like we should do all of this bottom-up, but I think
that is a red herring. Specifically, the simplification power is *much*
greater working top-down. We can forward propagate very effectively,
even across strange and interesting recurrances around the backedge.
Because we use data to propagate, this doesn't cause a state space
explosion. Doing this level of constant folding, etc, would be very
expensive to do bottom-up because it wouldn't be until the last moment
that you could collapse everything. The current solution is essentially
a top-down simplification with a bottom-up cost accounting which seems
to get the best of both worlds. It makes the simplification incremental
and powerful while leaving everything dead until we *know* it is needed.
Finally, a core property of this approach is its *monotonicity*. At all
times, the current UnrolledCost is a conservatively low estimate. This
ensures that we will never early-exit from the analysis due to exceeding
a threshold when if we had continued, the cost would have gone back
below the threshold. These kinds of bugs can cause incredibly hard to
track down random changes to behavior.
We could use a techinque similar (but much simpler) within the inliner
as well to avoid considering speculated code in the inline cost.
Reviewers: chandlerc
Subscribers: sanjoy, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11758
llvm-svn: 269388
Before r268509, Clang would disable the loop unroll pass when optimizing
for size. That commit enabled it to be able to support unroll pragmas
in -Os builds. However, this regressed binary size in one of Chromium's
DLLs with ~100 KB.
This restores the original behaviour of no unrolling at -Os, but doing it
in LLVM instead of Clang makes more sense, and also allows the pragmas to
keep working.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20115
llvm-svn: 269124
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
1. Add FullUnrollMaxCount option that works like MaxCount, but also limits
the unroll count for fully unrolled loops. So if a loop has an iteration
count over this, it won't fully unroll.
2. Add CLI options for MaxCount and the new option, so they can be tested
(plus a test).
3. Make partial unrolling obey MaxCount.
An example use-case (the out of tree one this is originally designed for) is
a target’s TTI can analyze a loop and decide on a max unroll count separate
from the size threshold, e.g. based on register pressure, then constrain
LoopUnroll to not exceed that, regardless of the size of the unrolled loop.
llvm-svn: 265562
Summary:
Specifically, when we perform runtime loop unrolling of a loop that
contains a convergent op, we can only unroll k times, where k divides
the loop trip multiple.
Without this change, we'll happily unroll e.g. the following loop
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
if (i == 0) convergent_op();
foo();
}
into
int i = 0;
if (N % 2 == 1) {
convergent_op();
foo();
++i;
}
for (; i < N - 1; i += 2) {
if (i == 0) convergent_op();
foo();
foo();
}.
This is unsafe, because we've just added a control-flow dependency to
the convergent op in the prelude.
In general, runtime unrolling loops that contain convergent ops is safe
only if we don't have emit a prelude, which occurs when the unroll count
divides the trip multiple.
Reviewers: resistor
Subscribers: llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17526
llvm-svn: 263509
Summary: Check that we're using SCEV for the same loop we're simulating. Otherwise, we might try to use the iteration number of the current loop in SCEV expressions for inner/outer loops IVs, which is clearly incorrect.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17632
llvm-svn: 261958
routine.
We were getting this wrong in small ways and generally being very
inconsistent about it across loop passes. Instead, let's have a common
place where we do this. One minor downside is that this will require
some analyses like SCEV in more places than they are strictly needed.
However, this seems benign as these analyses are complete no-ops, and
without this consistency we can in many cases end up with the legacy
pass manager scheduling deciding to split up a loop pass pipeline in
order to run the function analysis half-way through. It is very, very
annoying to fix these without just being very pedantic across the board.
The only loop passes I've not updated here are ones that use
AU.setPreservesAll() such as IVUsers (an analysis) and the pass printer.
They seemed less relevant.
With this patch, almost all of the problems in PR24804 around loop pass
pipelines are fixed. The one remaining issue is that we run simplify-cfg
and instcombine in the middle of the loop pass pipeline. We've recently
added some loop variants of these passes that would seem substantially
cleaner to use, but this at least gets us much closer to the previous
state. Notably, the seven loop pass managers is down to three.
I've not updated the loop passes using LoopAccessAnalysis because that
analysis hasn't been fully wired into LoopSimplify/LCSSA, and it isn't
clear that those transforms want to support those forms anyways. They
all run late anyways, so this is harmless. Similarly, LSR is left alone
because it already carefully manages its forms and doesn't need to get
fused into a single loop pass manager with a bunch of other loop passes.
LoopReroll didn't use loop simplified form previously, and I've updated
the test case to match the trivially different output.
Finally, I've also factored all the pass initialization for the passes
that use this technique as well, so that should be done regularly and
reliably.
Thanks to James for the help reviewing and thinking about this stuff,
and Ben for help thinking about it as well!
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17435
llvm-svn: 261316
Summary:
Unrolling Analyzer is already pretty complicated, and it becomes harder and harder to exercise it with usual IR tests, as with them we can only check the final decision: whether the loop is unrolled or not. This change factors this framework out from LoopUnrollPass to analyses, which allows to use unit tests.
The change itself is supposed to be NFC, except adding a couple of tests.
I plan to add more tests as I add new functionality and find/fix bugs.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel, sanjoy
Subscribers: zzheng, sanjoy, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D16623
llvm-svn: 260169
The layering of where the various loop unroll parameters are
initialized and overridden here was very confusing, making it pretty
difficult to tell just how the various sources interacted. Instead, we
put all of the initialization logic together in a single function so
that it's obvious what overrides what.
llvm-svn: 257426
Currently we're unrolling loops more in minsize than in optsize, which
means -Oz will have a larger code size than -Os. That doesn't make any
sense.
This resolves the FIXME about this in LoopUnrollPass and extends the
optsize test to make sure we use the smaller threshold for minsize as
well.
llvm-svn: 257402
As of r255720, the loop pass manager will DTRT when passes update the
loop info for removed loops, so they no longer need to reach into
LPPassManager APIs to do this kind of transformation. This change very
nearly removes the need for the LPPassManager to even be passed into
loop passes - the only remaining pass that uses the LPM argument is
LoopUnswitch.
llvm-svn: 255797
A large number of loop utility functions take a `Pass *` and reach
into it to find out which analyses to preserve. There are a number of
problems with this:
- The APIs have access to pretty well any Pass state they want, so
it's hard to tell what they may or may not do.
- Other APIs have copied these and pass around a `Pass *` even though
they don't even use it. Some of these just hand a nullptr to the API
since the callers don't even have a pass available.
- Passes in the new pass manager don't work like the current ones, so
the APIs can't be used as is there.
Instead, we should explicitly thread the analysis results that we
actually care about through these APIs. This is both simpler and more
reusable.
llvm-svn: 255669
Apart from checking that GlobalVariable is a constant, we should check
that it's not a weak constant, in which case we can't propagate its
value.
llvm-svn: 248327
We only checked that a global is initialized with constants, which is
incorrect. We should be checking that GlobalVariable *is* a constant,
not just initialized with it.
llvm-svn: 247769
GlobalsAA must by definition be preserved in function passes, but the passmanager doesn't know that. Make each pass explicitly preserve GlobalsAA.
llvm-svn: 247263
This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces
one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the
object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in
a number of places, and other refactorings.
I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to
a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic
printing support much like with other analyses.
But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch
ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass
just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the
existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This
might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track
updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means
that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept
accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would
have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the
entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of
this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as
far as I can see.
To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update
with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because
LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely
possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and
then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted
for the first function! Ouch.
To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't*
trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or
another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such
a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in
a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to
debug.
With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and
recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this
could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is
also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from
tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we
never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an
actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact
there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation,
I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while
clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of
optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such
cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's
possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV
caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so
until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063
llvm-svn: 245193
This change adds the unroll metadata "llvm.loop.unroll.enable" which directs
the optimizer to unroll a loop fully if the trip count is known at compile time, and
unroll partially if the trip count is not known at compile time. This differs from
"llvm.loop.unroll.full" which explicitly does not unroll a loop if the trip count is not
known at compile time.
The "llvm.loop.unroll.enable" is intended to be added for loops annotated with
"#pragma unroll".
llvm-svn: 244466
Create wrapper methods in the Function class for the OptimizeForSize and MinSize
attributes. We want to hide the logic of "or'ing" them together when optimizing
just for size (-Os).
Currently, we are not consistent about this and rely on a front-end to always set
OptimizeForSize (-Os) if MinSize (-Oz) is on. Thus, there are 18 FIXME changes here
that should be added as follow-on patches with regression tests.
This patch is NFC-intended: it just replaces existing direct accesses of the attributes
by the equivalent wrapper call.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11734
llvm-svn: 243994
through PHI nodes across iterations.
This patch teaches the new advanced loop unrolling heuristics to propagate
constants into the loop from the preheader and around the backedge after
simulating each iteration. This lets us brute force solve simple recurrances
that aren't modeled effectively by SCEV. It also makes it more clear why we
need to process the loop in-order rather than bottom-up which might otherwise
make much more sense (for example, for DCE).
This came out of an attempt I'm making to develop a principled way to account
for dead code in the unroll estimation. When I implemented
a forward-propagating version of that it produced incorrect results due to
failing to propagate *cost* between loop iterations through the PHI nodes, and
it occured to me we really should at least propagate simplifications across
those edges, and it is quite easy thanks to the loop being in canonical and
LCSSA form.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11706
llvm-svn: 243900
David Majnemer