This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
llvm-svn: 288274
Summary:
For flat loop, even if it is hot, it is not a good idea to unroll in runtime, thus we set a lower partial unroll threshold.
For hot loop, we set a higher unroll threshold and allows expensive tripcount computation to allow more aggressive unrolling.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: sanjoy, mehdi_amini, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26527
llvm-svn: 287186
Summary:
Unrolled Loop Size calculations moved to a function.
Constant representing number of optimized instructions
when "back edge" becomes "fall through" replaced with
variable.
Some comments added.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21719
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 286389
When we have a loop with a known upper bound on the number of iterations, and
furthermore know that either the number of iterations will be either exactly
that upper bound or zero, then we can fully unroll up to that upper bound
keeping only the first loop test to check for the zero iteration case.
Most of the work here is in plumbing this 'max-or-zero' information from the
part of scalar evolution where it's detected through to loop unrolling. I've
also gone for the safe default of 'false' everywhere but howManyLessThans which
could probably be improved.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25682
llvm-svn: 284818
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
Summary: Debug info should *not* affect optimization decisions. This patch updates loop unroller cost model to make it not affected by debug info.
Reviewers: davidxl, mzolotukhin
Subscribers: haicheng, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25098
llvm-svn: 282894
This commit enables more unrolling for SystemZ by implementing the
SystemZTargetTransformInfo::getUnrollingPreferences() method.
It has been found that it is better to only unroll moderately, so the
DefaultUnrollRuntimeCount has been moved into UnrollingPreferences in order
to set this to a lower value for SystemZ (4).
Reviewers: Evgeny Stupachenko, Ulrich Weigand.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24451
llvm-svn: 282570
We can't mark ORE (a function pass) preserved as required by the loop
passes because that is how we ensure that the required passes like
LazyBFI are all available any time ORE is used. See the new comments in
the patch.
Instead we use it directly just like the inliner does in D22694.
As expected there is some additional overhead after removing the caching
provided by analysis passes. The worst case, I measured was
LNT/CINT2006_ref/401.bzip2 which regresses by 12%. As before, this only
affects -Rpass-with-hotness and not default compilation.
llvm-svn: 279829
Summary:
In clang commit r268509 we started to invoke loop-unroll pass from the
driver even under -Os. However, we happen to not initialize optsize
thresholds properly, which si fixed with this change.
r268509 led to some big compile time regressions, because we started to
unroll some loops that we didn't unroll before. With this change I hope
to recover most of the regressions. We still are slightly slower than
before, because we do some checks here and there in loop-unrolling
before we bail out, but at least the slowdown is not that huge now.
Reviewers: hfinkel, chandlerc
Subscribers: mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23388
llvm-svn: 279585
One exception here is LoopInfo which must forward-declare it (because
the typedef is in LoopPassManager.h which depends on LoopInfo).
Also, some includes for LoopPassManager.h were needed since that file
provides the typedef.
Besides a general consistently benefit, the extra layer of indirection
allows the mechanical part of https://reviews.llvm.org/D23256 that
requires touching every transformation and analysis to be factored out
cleanly.
Thanks to David for the suggestion.
llvm-svn: 278079
LoopUnroll is a loop pass, so the analysis of OptimizationRemarkEmitter
is added to the common function analysis passes that loop passes
depend on.
The BFI and indirectly BPI used in this pass is computed lazily so no
overhead should be observed unless -pass-remarks-with-hotness is used.
This is how the patch affects the O3 pipeline:
Dominator Tree Construction
Natural Loop Information
Canonicalize natural loops
Loop-Closed SSA Form Pass
Basic Alias Analysis (stateless AA impl)
Function Alias Analysis Results
Scalar Evolution Analysis
+ Lazy Branch Probability Analysis
+ Lazy Block Frequency Analysis
+ Optimization Remark Emitter
Loop Pass Manager
Rotate Loops
Loop Invariant Code Motion
Unswitch loops
Simplify the CFG
Dominator Tree Construction
Basic Alias Analysis (stateless AA impl)
Function Alias Analysis Results
Combine redundant instructions
Natural Loop Information
Canonicalize natural loops
Loop-Closed SSA Form Pass
Scalar Evolution Analysis
+ Lazy Branch Probability Analysis
+ Lazy Block Frequency Analysis
+ Optimization Remark Emitter
Loop Pass Manager
Induction Variable Simplification
Recognize loop idioms
Delete dead loops
Unroll loops
...
llvm-svn: 277203
We just set PreserveLCSSA to always true since we don't have an
analogous method `mustPreserveAnalysisID(LCSSA)`.
Also port LoopInfo verifier pass to test LoopUnrollPass.
llvm-svn: 276063
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
Dehao Chen