This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
In this patch I have added support for a new loop hint called
vectorize.scalable.enable that says whether we should enable scalable
vectorization or not. If a user wants to instruct the compiler to
vectorize a loop with scalable vectors they can now do this as
follows:
br i1 %exitcond, label %for.end, label %for.body, !llvm.loop !2
...
!2 = !{!2, !3, !4}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.width", i32 8}
!4 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.scalable.enable", i1 true}
Setting the hint to false simply reverts the behaviour back to the
default, using fixed width vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88962
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
In the following loop the dependence distance is 2 and can only be
vectorized if the vector length is no larger than this.
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable) vectorize_width(4)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i) {
a[i + 2] = a[i] + b[i];
}
}
However, when specifying a VF of 4 via a loop hint this loop is
vectorized. According to [1][2], loop hints are ignored if the
optimization is not safe to apply.
This patch introduces a check to bail of vectorization if the user
specified VF is greater than the maximum feasible VF, unless explicitly
forced with '-force-vector-width=X'.
[1] https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-loop-vectorize-and-llvm-loop-interleave
[2] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#extensions-for-loop-hint-optimizations
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90687
Instruction ExtractValue wasn't handled in
LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInstructionCost(). As a result, it was modeled
as a mul which is not really accurate. Since it is free (most of the times),
this now gets a cost of 0 using getInstructionCost.
This is a follow-up of D92208, that required changing this regression test.
In a follow up I will look at InsertValue which also isn't handled yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92317
VPPredInstPHIRecipe is one of the recipes that was missed during the
initial conversion. This patch adjusts the recipe to also manage its
operand using VPUser.
This was modeled to have a cost of 1, but since we do not have a MUL.2d this is
scalarized into vector inserts/extracts and scalar muls.
Motivating precommitted test is test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/AArch64/mul.ll,
which we don't want to SLP vectorize.
Test Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/extractvalue-no-scalarization-required.ll
unfortunately needed changing, but the reason is documented in
LoopVectorize.cpp:6855:
// The cost of executing VF copies of the scalar instruction. This opcode
// is unknown. Assume that it is the same as 'mul'.
which I will address next as a follow up of this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92208
Similar to other patches, this makes VPWidenRecipe a VPValue. Because of
the way it interacts with the reduction code it also slightly alters the
way that VPValues are registered, removing the up front NeedDef and
using getOrAddVPValue to create them on-demand if needed instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88447
This converts the VPReductionRecipe into a VPValue, like other
VPRecipe's in preparation for traversing def-use chains. It also makes
it a VPUser, now storing the used VPValues as operands.
It doesn't yet change how the VPReductionRecipes are created. It will
need to call replaceAllUsesWith from the original recipe they replace,
but that is not done yet as VPWidenRecipe need to be created first.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88382
Fix PR47390.
The primary induction should be considered alive when folding tail by masking,
because it will be used by said masking; even when it may otherwise appear
useless: feeding only its own 'bump', which is correctly considered dead, and
as the 'bump' of another induction variable, which may wrongfully want to
consider its bump = the primary induction, dead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92017
A uniform load is one which loads from a uniform address across all lanes. As currently implemented, we cost model such loads as if we did a single scalar load + a broadcast, but the actual lowering replicates the load once per lane.
This change tweaks the lowering to use the REPLICATE strategy by marking such loads (and the computation leading to their memory operand) as uniform after vectorization. This is a useful change in itself, but it's real purpose is to pave the way for a following change which will generalize our uniformity logic.
In review discussion, there was an issue raised with coupling cost modeling with the lowering strategy for uniform inputs. The discussion on that item remains unsettled and is pending larger architectural discussion. We decided to move forward with this patch as is, and revise as warranted once the bigger picture design questions are settled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91398
This is re-applying a combination of f7eac51b9b and 8ec7ea3ddc as one patch
to avoid regressions now that we have better testing in place.
Those were reverted with 32dd5870ee because of crashing in experimental intrinsics.
That bug should be fixed with 7ae346434.
Paraphrased original commit messages:
This is the last step in removing cost-kind as a consideration in the
basic class model for intrinsics.
See D89461 for the start of that.
Subsequent commits dealt with each of the special-case intrinsics that
had customization here in the basic class. This should remove a barrier
to retrying D87188 (canonicalization to the abs intrinsic).
The ARM and x86 cost diffs seen here may be wrong because the
target-specific overrides have their own bugs, but we hope this is
less wrong - if something has a significant throughput cost, then it
should have a significant size / blended cost too by default.
The only behavioral diff in current regression tests is shown in the
x86 scatter-gather test (which is misplaced or broken because it runs
the entire -O3 pipeline) - we unrolled less, and we assume that is
a improvement.
Exception: in general, we want the *size* cost for a scalar call to be
cheap even if the other costs are expensive - we expect it to just be
a branch with some optional stack manipulation.
It is likely that we will want to carve out some
exceptions/overrides to this rule as follow-up patches for
calls that have some general and/or target-specific difference
to the expected lowering.
This was noticed as a regression in unrolling, so we have a test
for that now along with a couple of direct cost model tests.
If the assumed scalarization costs for the oversized vector
calls are not realistic, that would be another follow-up
refinement of the cost models.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90554
as it's causing crashes in the optimizer. A reduced testcase has been posted as a follow-up.
This reverts commit f7eac51b9b.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] make default size cost for libcalls small (again)" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 8ec7ea3ddc.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] add tests for math library calls; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit df09f82599.
Temporarily Revert "[LoopUnroll] add test for full unroll that is sensitive to cost-model; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 618d555e8d.
I noticed an add example like the one from D91343, so here's a similar patch.
The logic is based on existing code for the single-use demanded bits fold.
But I only matched a constant instead of using compute known bits on the
operands because that was the motivating patterni that I noticed.
I think this will allow removing a special-case (but incomplete) dedicated
fold within visitAnd(), but I need to untangle the existing code to be sure.
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/V6fP
Name: add with low mask
Pre: (C1 & (-1 u>> countLeadingZeros(C2))) == 0
%a = add i8 %x, C1
%r = and i8 %a, C2
=>
%r = and i8 %x, C2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91415
This patch turns VPWidenGEPRecipe into a VPValue and uses it
during VPlan construction and codegeneration instead of the plain IR
reference where possible.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84683
This patch turns VPWidenSelectRecipe into a VPValue and uses it
during VPlan construction and codegeneration instead of the plain IR
reference where possible.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84682
This is the last step in removing cost-kind as a consideration in the basic class model for intrinsics.
See D89461 for the start of that.
Subsequent commits dealt with each of the special-case intrinsics that had customization here in the
basic class. This should remove a barrier to retrying
D87188 (canonicalization to the abs intrinsic).
The ARM and x86 cost diffs seen here may be wrong because the target-specific overrides have their own
bugs, but we hope this is less wrong - if something has a significant throughput cost, then it should
have a significant size / blended cost too by default.
The only behavioral diff in current regression tests is shown in the x86 scatter-gather test (which is
misplaced or broken because it runs the entire -O3 pipeline) - we unrolled less, and we assume that is
a improvement.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90554
This patch turns VPWidenCall into a VPValue and uses it
during VPlan construction and codegeneration instead of the plain IR
reference where possible.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84681
Claim to not have any vector support to dissuade SLP, LV and friends
from generating SIMD IR for the VE target. We will take this back once
vector isel is stable.
Reviewed By: kaz7, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90462
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
Use -0.0 instead of 0.0 as the start value. The previous use of 0.0
was fine for all existing uses of this function though, as it is
always generated with fast flags right now, and thus nsz.
When trying to prove that a memory access touches only dereferenceable memory across all iterations of a loop, use the maximum exit count rather than an exact one. In many cases we can't prove exact exit counts whereas we can prove an upper bound.
The test included is for a single exit loop with a min(C,V) exit count, but the true motivation is support for multiple exits loops. It's just really hard to write a test case for multiple exits because the vectorizer (the primary user of this API), bails far before this. For multiple exits, this allows a mix of analyzeable and unanalyzable exits when only analyzeable exits are needed to prove deref.
-Oz normally does not allow loop header duplication so this loop wouldn't be
vectorized. However the vectorization pragma should override this and allow
for loop rotation.
rdar://problem/49281061
Original patch by Adam Nemet.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59832
CallInst::updateProfWeight() creates branch_weights with i64 instead of i32.
To be more consistent everywhere and remove lots of casts from uint64_t
to uint32_t, use i64 for branch_weights.
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88609
The warning would fire when calling isDereferenceableAndAlignedInLoop
with a scalable load. Calling isDereferenceableAndAlignedInLoop with a
scalable load would result in the use of the now deprecated implicit
cast of TypeSize to uint64_t through the overloaded operator.
This patch fixes this issue by:
- no longer considering vector loads as candidates in
canVectorizeWithIfConvert. This doesn't make sense in the context of
identifying scalar loads to vectorize.
- making use of getFixedSize inside isDereferenceableAndAlignedInLoop --
this removes the dependency on the deprecated interface, and will
trigger an assertion error if the function is ever called with a
scalable type.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89798
We should first try to constant fold the add expression and only
strengthen nowrap flags afterwards. This allows us to determine
stronger flags if e.g. only two operands are left after constant
folding (and thus "guaranteed no wrap region" code applies) or the
resulting operands are non-negative and thus nsw->nuw strengthening
applies.
LV fails with assertion checking that UF > 0. We already set UF to 1 if it is 0 except the case when IC > MaxInterleaveCount. The fix is to set UF to 1 for that case as well.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87679
This expands upon the inloop reductions added in e9761688e41cb9e976,
allowing them to be inserted into tail folded loops. Reductions are
generates with the form:
x = select(mask, vecop, zero)
v = vecreduce.add(x)
c = add chain, v
Where zero here is chosen as the identity value for add reductions. The
backend is then expected to fold the select and the vecreduce into a
single predicated instruction.
Most of the code is fairly straight forward, except for the creation of
blockmasks which need to ensure they are created in dominance order. The
order they are added is altered to be after any phis, keeping the
requirements for the underlying IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84451
Bardia Mahjour