Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally.
A trellis of the shape below:
A B
|\ /|
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
|/ \|
C D
would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify
trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an
increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more
predecessor blocks that all have the same successors.
because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises.
As an example consider the following CFG:
B D F H
/ \ / \ / \ / \
A---C---E---G---Ret
Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions).
The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret.
The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout
A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret
define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1: ; A
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1
optional1: ; B
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2: ; C
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2
optional2: ; D
call void @b()
br label %test3
test3: ; E
%tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4
%tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0
br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3
optional3: ; F
call void @c()
br label %test4
test4: ; G
%tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8
%tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0
br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4
optional4: ; H
call void @d()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
here is the layout after D27742:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; ... Prologue elided
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
; ... More prologue elided
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_3
b .LBB0_4
.LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_4
.LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_5
b .LBB0_6
.LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
b .LBB0_7
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret
ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload
addi 1, 1, 112
ld 0, 16(1)
mtlr 0
blr
The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a
trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts
of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication
accordingly.
This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have
back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating
positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings
of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts
handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also
improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks.
Here is the resulting concrete layout:
straight_test: # @straight_test
; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1)
mr 30, 3
andi. 3, 30, 1
bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4
; BB#1: # %test2 ; C
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
bne 0, .LBB0_5
.LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
bne 0, .LBB0_6
.LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
bne 0, .LBB0_7
b .LBB0_8
.LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C)
bl a
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30
beq 0, .LBB0_2
.LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E)
bl b
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29
beq 0, .LBB0_3
.LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G)
bl c
nop
rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28
beq 0, .LBB0_8
.LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H
bl d
nop
.LBB0_8: # %exit
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522
llvm-svn: 295223
From:
int M, total;
void foo() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < M; i++) {
total = total + i / 2;
}
}
This is the kernel loop:
.LBB0_2: # %for.body
=>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
movl %edx, %esi
movl %ecx, %edx
shrl $31, %edx
addl %ecx, %edx
sarl %edx
addl %esi, %edx
incl %ecx
cmpl %eax, %ecx
jl .LBB0_2
--------------------------
The first mov insn "movl %edx, %esi" could be removed if we change "addl %esi, %edx" to "addl %edx, %esi".
The IR before TwoAddressInstructionPass is:
BB#2: derived from LLVM BB %for.body
Predecessors according to CFG: BB#1 BB#2
%vreg3<def> = COPY %vreg12<kill>; GR32:%vreg3,%vreg12
%vreg2<def> = COPY %vreg11<kill>; GR32:%vreg2,%vreg11
%vreg7<def,tied1> = SHR32ri %vreg3<tied0>, 31, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>; GR32:%vreg7,%vreg3
%vreg8<def,tied1> = ADD32rr %vreg3<tied0>, %vreg7<kill>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>; GR32:%vreg8,%vreg3,%vreg7
%vreg9<def,tied1> = SAR32r1 %vreg8<kill,tied0>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>; GR32:%vreg9,%vreg8
%vreg4<def,tied1> = ADD32rr %vreg9<kill,tied0>, %vreg2<kill>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>; GR32:%vreg4,%vreg9,%vreg2
%vreg5<def,tied1> = INC64_32r %vreg3<kill,tied0>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>; GR32:%vreg5,%vreg3
CMP32rr %vreg5, %vreg0, %EFLAGS<imp-def>; GR32:%vreg5,%vreg0
%vreg11<def> = COPY %vreg4; GR32:%vreg11,%vreg4
%vreg12<def> = COPY %vreg5<kill>; GR32:%vreg12,%vreg5
JL_4 <BB#2>, %EFLAGS<imp-use,kill>
Now TwoAddressInstructionPass will choose vreg9 to be tied with vreg4. However, it doesn't see that there is copy from vreg4 to vreg11 and another copy from vreg11 to vreg2 inside the loop body. To remove those copies, it is necessary to choose vreg2 to be tied with vreg4 instead of vreg9. This code pattern commonly appears when there is reduction operation in a loop.
So check for a reversed copy chain and if we encounter one then we can commute the add instruction so we can avoid a copy.
Patch by Wei Mi.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7806
llvm-svn: 231148
Kyle Butt