Addition of this pass has been botched.
There is no particular reason why it had to be sold as an inseparable part
of new-pm transition. It was added when old-pm was still the default,
and very *very* few users were actually tracking new-pm,
so it's effects weren't measured.
Which means, some of the turnoil of the new-pm transition
are actually likely regressions due to this pass.
Likewise, there has been a number of post-commit feedback
(post new-pm switch), namely
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787157 (regresses HW-loops)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787259 (should not be in middle-end, should run after LSR, not before)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D95789 (an attempt to fix bad loop backedge metadata)
and in the half year past, the pass authors (google) still haven't found time to respond to any of that.
Hereby it is proposed to backout the pass from the pipeline,
until someone who cares about it can address the issues reported,
and properly start the process of adding a new pass into the pipeline,
with proper performance evaluation.
Furthermore, neither google nor facebook reports any perf changes
from this change, so i'm dropping the pass completely.
It can always be re-reverted should/if anyone want to pick it up again.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104099
This was reverted in 503deec218
because it caused gigantic increase (3x) in branch mispredictions
in certain benchmarks on certain CPU's,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D84108#2227365.
It has since been investigated and here are the results:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20200907/827578.html
> It's an amazingly severe regression, but it's also all due to branch
> mispredicts (about 3x without this). The code layout looks ok so there's
> probably something else to deal with. I'm not sure there's anything we can
> reasonably do so we'll just have to take the hit for now and wait for
> another code reorganization to make the branch predictor a bit more happy :)
>
> Thanks for giving us some time to investigate and feel free to recommit
> whenever you'd like.
>
> -eric
So let's just reland this.
Original commit message:
I've been looking at missed vectorizations in one codebase.
One particular thing that stands out is that some of the loops
reach vectorizer in a rather mangled form, with weird PHI's,
and some of the loops aren't even in a rotated form.
After taking a more detailed look, that happened because
the loop's headers were too big by then. It is evident that
SimplifyCFG's common code hoisting transform is at fault there,
because the pattern it handles is precisely the unrotated
loop basic block structure.
Surprizingly, `SimplifyCFGOpt::HoistThenElseCodeToIf()` is enabled
by default, and is always run, unlike it's friend, common code sinking
transform, `SinkCommonCodeFromPredecessors()`, which is not enabled
by default and is only run once very late in the pipeline.
I'm proposing to harmonize this, and disable common code hoisting
until //late// in pipeline. Definition of //late// may vary,
here currently i've picked the same one as for code sinking,
but i suppose we could enable it as soon as right after
loop rotation happens.
Experimentation shows that this does indeed unsurprizingly help,
more loops got rotated, although other issues remain elsewhere.
Now, this undoubtedly seriously shakes phase ordering.
This will undoubtedly be a mixed bag in terms of both compile- and
run- time performance, codesize. Since we no longer aggressively
hoist+deduplicate common code, we don't pay the price of said hoisting
(which wasn't big). That may allow more loops to be rotated,
so we pay that price. That, in turn, that may enable all the transforms
that require canonical (rotated) loop form, including but not limited to
vectorization, so we pay that too. And in general, no deduplication means
more [duplicate] instructions going through the optimizations. But there's still
late hoisting, some of them will be caught late.
As per benchmarks i've run {F12360204}, this is mostly within the noise,
there are some small improvements, some small regressions.
One big regression i saw i fixed in rG8d487668d09fb0e4e54f36207f07c1480ffabbfd, but i'm sure
this will expose many more pre-existing missed optimizations, as usual :S
llvm-compile-time-tracker.com thoughts on this:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=e40315d2b4ed1e38962a8f33ff151693ed4ada63&to=c8289c0ecbf235da9fb0e3bc052e3c0d6bff5cf9&stat=instructions
* this does regress compile-time by +0.5% geomean (unsurprizingly)
* size impact varies; for ThinLTO it's actually an improvement
The largest fallout appears to be in GVN's load partial redundancy
elimination, it spends *much* more time in
`MemoryDependenceResults::getNonLocalPointerDependency()`.
Non-local `MemoryDependenceResults` is widely-known to be, uh, costly.
There does not appear to be a proper solution to this issue,
other than silencing the compile-time performance regression
by tuning cut-off thresholds in `MemoryDependenceResults`,
at the cost of potentially regressing run-time performance.
D84609 attempts to move in that direction, but the path is unclear
and is going to take some time.
If we look at stats before/after diffs, some excerpts:
* RawSpeed (the target) {F12360200}
* -14 (-73.68%) loops not rotated due to the header size (yay)
* -272 (-0.67%) `"Number of live out of a loop variables"` - good for vectorizer
* -3937 (-64.19%) common instructions hoisted
* +561 (+0.06%) x86 asm instructions
* -2 basic blocks
* +2418 (+0.11%) IR instructions
* vanilla test-suite + RawSpeed + darktable {F12360201}
* -36396 (-65.29%) common instructions hoisted
* +1676 (+0.02%) x86 asm instructions
* +662 (+0.06%) basic blocks
* +4395 (+0.04%) IR instructions
It is likely to be sub-optimal for when optimizing for code size,
so one might want to change tune pipeline by enabling sinking/hoisting
when optimizing for size.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84108
This reverts commit 503deec218.
As disscussed in post-commit review starting with
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84108#2227365
while this appears to be mostly a win overall, especially code-size-wise,
this appears to shake //certain// code pattens in a way that is extremely
unfavorable for performance (+30% runtime regression)
on certain CPU's (i personally can't reproduce).
So until the behaviour is better understood, and a path forward is mapped,
let's back this out for now.
This reverts commit 1d51dc38d8.
I've been looking at missed vectorizations in one codebase.
One particular thing that stands out is that some of the loops
reach vectorizer in a rather mangled form, with weird PHI's,
and some of the loops aren't even in a rotated form.
After taking a more detailed look, that happened because
the loop's headers were too big by then. It is evident that
SimplifyCFG's common code hoisting transform is at fault there,
because the pattern it handles is precisely the unrotated
loop basic block structure.
Surprizingly, `SimplifyCFGOpt::HoistThenElseCodeToIf()` is enabled
by default, and is always run, unlike it's friend, common code sinking
transform, `SinkCommonCodeFromPredecessors()`, which is not enabled
by default and is only run once very late in the pipeline.
I'm proposing to harmonize this, and disable common code hoisting
until //late// in pipeline. Definition of //late// may vary,
here currently i've picked the same one as for code sinking,
but i suppose we could enable it as soon as right after
loop rotation happens.
Experimentation shows that this does indeed unsurprizingly help,
more loops got rotated, although other issues remain elsewhere.
Now, this undoubtedly seriously shakes phase ordering.
This will undoubtedly be a mixed bag in terms of both compile- and
run- time performance, codesize. Since we no longer aggressively
hoist+deduplicate common code, we don't pay the price of said hoisting
(which wasn't big). That may allow more loops to be rotated,
so we pay that price. That, in turn, that may enable all the transforms
that require canonical (rotated) loop form, including but not limited to
vectorization, so we pay that too. And in general, no deduplication means
more [duplicate] instructions going through the optimizations. But there's still
late hoisting, some of them will be caught late.
As per benchmarks i've run {F12360204}, this is mostly within the noise,
there are some small improvements, some small regressions.
One big regression i saw i fixed in rG8d487668d09fb0e4e54f36207f07c1480ffabbfd, but i'm sure
this will expose many more pre-existing missed optimizations, as usual :S
llvm-compile-time-tracker.com thoughts on this:
http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=e40315d2b4ed1e38962a8f33ff151693ed4ada63&to=c8289c0ecbf235da9fb0e3bc052e3c0d6bff5cf9&stat=instructions
* this does regress compile-time by +0.5% geomean (unsurprizingly)
* size impact varies; for ThinLTO it's actually an improvement
The largest fallout appears to be in GVN's load partial redundancy
elimination, it spends *much* more time in
`MemoryDependenceResults::getNonLocalPointerDependency()`.
Non-local `MemoryDependenceResults` is widely-known to be, uh, costly.
There does not appear to be a proper solution to this issue,
other than silencing the compile-time performance regression
by tuning cut-off thresholds in `MemoryDependenceResults`,
at the cost of potentially regressing run-time performance.
D84609 attempts to move in that direction, but the path is unclear
and is going to take some time.
If we look at stats before/after diffs, some excerpts:
* RawSpeed (the target) {F12360200}
* -14 (-73.68%) loops not rotated due to the header size (yay)
* -272 (-0.67%) `"Number of live out of a loop variables"` - good for vectorizer
* -3937 (-64.19%) common instructions hoisted
* +561 (+0.06%) x86 asm instructions
* -2 basic blocks
* +2418 (+0.11%) IR instructions
* vanilla test-suite + RawSpeed + darktable {F12360201}
* -36396 (-65.29%) common instructions hoisted
* +1676 (+0.02%) x86 asm instructions
* +662 (+0.06%) basic blocks
* +4395 (+0.04%) IR instructions
It is likely to be sub-optimal for when optimizing for code size,
so one might want to change tune pipeline by enabling sinking/hoisting
when optimizing for size.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84108
Roman Lebedev