-view-machine-block-freq-propagation-dags currently
support integer and fraction as the suboptions. This
patch adds the 'count' suboption to display actual
profile count if available.
llvm-svn: 273460
string_ostream is a safe and efficient string builder that combines opaque
stack storage with a built-in ostream interface.
small_string_ostream<bytes> additionally permits an explicit stack storage size
other than the default 128 bytes to be provided. Beyond that, storage is
transferred to the heap.
This convenient class can be used in most places an
std::string+raw_string_ostream pair or SmallString<>+raw_svector_ostream pair
would previously have been used, in order to guarantee consistent access
without byte truncation.
The patch also converts much of LLVM to use the new facility. These changes
include several probable bug fixes for truncated output, a programming error
that's no longer possible with the new interface.
llvm-svn: 211749
define below all header includes in the lib/CodeGen/... tree. While the
current modules implementation doesn't check for this kind of ODR
violation yet, it is likely to grow support for it in the future. It
also removes one layer of macro pollution across all the included
headers.
Other sub-trees will follow.
llvm-svn: 206837
This reverts commit r206707, reapplying r206704. The preceding commit
to CalcSpillWeights should have sorted out the failing buildbots.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206766
This reverts commit r206677, reapplying my BlockFrequencyInfo rewrite.
I've done a careful audit, added some asserts, and fixed a couple of
bugs (unfortunately, they were in unlikely code paths). There's a small
chance that this will appease the failing bots [1][2]. (If so, great!)
If not, I have a follow-up commit ready that will temporarily add
-debug-only=block-freq to the two failing tests, allowing me to compare
the code path between what the failing bots and what my machines (and
the rest of the bots) are doing. Once I've triggered those builds, I'll
revert both commits so the bots go green again.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206704
This reverts commit r206666, as planned.
Still stumped on why the bots are failing. Sanitizer bots haven't
turned anything up. If anyone can help me debug either of the failures
(referenced in r206666) I'll owe them a beer. (In the meantime, I'll be
auditing my patch for undefined behaviour.)
llvm-svn: 206677
This reverts commit r206628, reapplying r206622 (and r206626).
Two tests are failing only on buildbots [1][2]: i.e., I can't reproduce
on Darwin, and Chandler can't reproduce on Linux. Asan and valgrind
don't tell us anything, but we're hoping the msan bot will catch it.
So, I'm applying this again to get more feedback from the bots. I'll
leave it in long enough to trigger builds in at least the sanitizer
buildbots (it was failing for reasons unrelated to my commit last time
it was in), and hopefully a few others.... and then I expect to revert a
third time.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
llvm-svn: 206666
This reverts commit r206622 and the MSVC fixup in r206626.
Apparently the remotely failing tests are still failing, despite my
attempt to fix the nondeterminism in r206621.
llvm-svn: 206628
This reverts commit r206556, effectively reapplying commit r206548 and
its fixups in r206549 and r206550.
In an intervening commit I've added target triples to the tests that
were failing remotely [1] (but passing locally). I'm hoping the mystery
is solved? I'll revert this again if the tests are still failing
remotely.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
llvm-svn: 206622
Rewrite the shared implementation of BlockFrequencyInfo and
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo entirely.
The old implementation had a fundamental flaw: precision losses from
nested loops (or very wide branches) compounded past loop exits (and
convergence points).
The @nested_loops testcase at the end of
test/Analysis/BlockFrequencyAnalysis/basic.ll is motivating. This
function has three nested loops, with branch weights in the loop headers
of 1:4000 (exit:continue). The old analysis gives non-sensical results:
Printing analysis 'Block Frequency Analysis' for function 'nested_loops':
---- Block Freqs ----
entry = 1.0
for.cond1.preheader = 1.00103
for.cond4.preheader = 5.5222
for.body6 = 18095.19995
for.inc8 = 4.52264
for.inc11 = 0.00109
for.end13 = 0.0
The new analysis gives correct results:
Printing analysis 'Block Frequency Analysis' for function 'nested_loops':
block-frequency-info: nested_loops
- entry: float = 1.0, int = 8
- for.cond1.preheader: float = 4001.0, int = 32007
- for.cond4.preheader: float = 16008001.0, int = 128064007
- for.body6: float = 64048012001.0, int = 512384096007
- for.inc8: float = 16008001.0, int = 128064007
- for.inc11: float = 4001.0, int = 32007
- for.end13: float = 1.0, int = 8
Most importantly, the frequency leaving each loop matches the frequency
entering it.
The new algorithm leverages BlockMass and PositiveFloat to maintain
precision, separates "probability mass distribution" from "loop
scaling", and uses dithering to eliminate probability mass loss. I have
unit tests for these types out of tree, but it was decided in the review
to make the classes private to BlockFrequencyInfoImpl, and try to shrink
them (or remove them entirely) in follow-up commits.
The new algorithm should generally have a complexity advantage over the
old. The previous algorithm was quadratic in the worst case. The new
algorithm is still worst-case quadratic in the presence of irreducible
control flow, but it's linear without it.
The key difference between the old algorithm and the new is that control
flow within a loop is evaluated separately from control flow outside,
limiting propagation of precision problems and allowing loop scale to be
calculated independently of mass distribution. Loops are visited
bottom-up, their loop scales are calculated, and they are replaced by
pseudo-nodes. Mass is then distributed through the function, which is
now a DAG. Finally, loops are revisited top-down to multiply through
the loop scales and the masses distributed to pseudo nodes.
There are some remaining flaws.
- Irreducible control flow isn't modelled correctly. LoopInfo and
MachineLoopInfo ignore irreducible edges, so this algorithm will
fail to scale accordingly. There's a note in the class
documentation about how to get closer. See also the comments in
test/Analysis/BlockFrequencyInfo/irreducible.ll.
- Loop scale is limited to 4096 per loop (2^12) to avoid exhausting
the 64-bit integer precision used downstream.
- The "bias" calculation proposed on llvmdev is *not* incorporated
here. This will be added in a follow-up commit, once comments from
this review have been handled.
llvm-svn: 206548
This is a shared implementation class for BlockFrequencyInfo and
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo, not for BlockFrequency, a related (but
distinct) class.
No functionality change.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206083
Implement Pass::releaseMemory() in BlockFrequencyInfo and
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo. Just delete the private implementation when
not in use. Switch to a std::unique_ptr to make the logic more clear.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 204741
This is useful for debugging issues in the BlockFrequency implementation
since one can easily visualize where probability mass and other errors
occur in the propagation.
This is the MI version of r194654.
llvm-svn: 196183
This is a band-aid to fix the most severe regressions we're seeing from basing
spill decisions on block frequencies, until we have a better solution.
llvm-svn: 184835
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
Xinliang David Li