Commit Graph

15 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Yonghong Song 9e6aa81588 [BPF] Fix a recursion bug in BPF Peephole ZEXT optimization
Commit a0841dfe85 ("[BPF] Fix a bug in peephole optimization")
fixed a bug in peephole optimization. Recursion is introduced
to handle COPY and PHI instructions.

Unfortunately, multiple PHI instructions may form a cycle
and this will cause infinite recursion, eventual segfault.
For Commit a0841dfe85, I indeed tried a few loops to ensure
that I won't see the recursion, but I did not try with
complex control flows, which, as demonstrated with the test case
in this patch, may introduce PHI cycles.

This patch fixed the issue by introducing a set to remember
visited PHI instructions. This way, cycles can be properly
detected and handled.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70586
2019-11-22 08:05:43 -08:00
Yonghong Song a0841dfe85 [BPF] Fix a bug in peephole optimization
One of current peephole optimiations is to remove SLL/SRL if
the sub register has been zero extended. This phase has two bugs
and one limitations.

First, for the physical subregister used in pseudo insn COPY
like below, it permits incorrect optimization.
    %0:gpr32 = COPY $w0
    ...
    %4:gpr = MOV_32_64 %0:gpr32
    %5:gpr = SLL_ri %4:gpr(tied-def 0), 32
    %6:gpr = SRA_ri %5:gpr(tied-def 0), 32
The $w0 could be from the return value of a previous function call
and its upper 32-bit value might contain some non-zero values.
The same applies to function arguments.

Second, the current code may permits removing SLL/SRA like below:
    %0:gpr32 = COPY $w0
    %1:gpr32 = COPY %0:gpr32
    ...
    %4:gpr = MOV_32_64 %1:gpr32
    %5:gpr = SLL_ri %4:gpr(tied-def 0), 32
    %6:gpr = SRA_ri %5:gpr(tied-def 0), 32
The reason is that it did not follow def-use chain to skip all
intermediate 32bit-to-32bit COPY instructions.

The current implementation is also very conservative for PHI
instructions. If any PHI insn component is another PHI or COPY insn,
it will just permit SLL/SRA.

This patch fixed the issue as follows:
 - During def/use chain traversal, if any physical register is read,
   SLL/SRA will be preserved as these physical registers are mostly
   from function return values or current function arguments.
 - Recursively visit all COPY and PHI instructions.
2019-11-20 15:19:59 -08:00
Reid Kleckner 904cd3e06b Prune a LegacyDivergenceAnalysis and MachineLoopInfo include each
Now X86ISelLowering doesn't depend on many IR analyses.

llvm-svn: 375320
2019-10-19 01:31:09 +00:00
Jiong Wang ec51851026 bpf: fix wrong truncation elimination when there is back-edge/loop
Currently, BPF backend is doing truncation elimination. If one truncation
is performed on a value defined by narrow loads, then it could be redundant
given BPF loads zero extend the destination register implicitly.

When the definition of the truncated value is a merging value (PHI node)
that could come from different code paths, then checks need to be done on
all possible code paths.

Above described optimization was introduced as r306685, however it doesn't
work when there is back-edge, for example when loop is used inside BPF
code.

For example for the following code, a zero-extended value should be stored
into b[i], but the "and reg, 0xffff" is wrongly eliminated which then
generates corrupted data.

void cal1(unsigned short *a, unsigned long *b, unsigned int k)
{
  unsigned short e;

  e = *a;
  for (unsigned int i = 0; i < k; i++) {
    b[i] = e;
    e = ~e;
  }
}

The reason is r306685 was trying to do the PHI node checks inside isel
DAG2DAG phase, and the checks are done on MachineInstr. This is actually
wrong, because MachineInstr is being built during isel phase and the
associated information is not completed yet. A quick search shows none
target other than BPF is access MachineInstr info during isel phase.

For an PHI node, when you reached it during isel phase, it may have all
predecessors linked, but not successors. It seems successors are linked to
PHI node only when doing SelectionDAGISel::FinishBasicBlock and this
happens later than PreprocessISelDAG hook.

Previously, BPF program doesn't allow loop, there is probably the reason
why this bug was not exposed.

This patch therefore fixes the bug by the following approach:
 - The existing truncation elimination code and the associated
   "load_to_vreg_" records are removed.
 - Instead, implement truncation elimination using MachineSSA pass, this
   is where all information are built, and keep the pass together with other
   similar peephole optimizations inside BPFMIPeephole.cpp. Redundant move
   elimination logic is updated accordingly.
 - Unit testcase included + no compilation errors for kernel BPF selftest.

Patch Review
===
Patch was sent to and reviewed by BPF community at:

  https://lore.kernel.org/bpf

Reported-by: David Beckett <david.beckett@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
llvm-svn: 375007
2019-10-16 15:27:59 +00:00
Daniel Sanders 0c47611131 Apply llvm-prefer-register-over-unsigned from clang-tidy to LLVM
Summary:
This clang-tidy check is looking for unsigned integer variables whose initializer
starts with an implicit cast from llvm::Register and changes the type of the
variable to llvm::Register (dropping the llvm:: where possible).

Partial reverts in:
X86FrameLowering.cpp - Some functions return unsigned and arguably should be MCRegister
X86FixupLEAs.cpp - Some functions return unsigned and arguably should be MCRegister
X86FrameLowering.cpp - Some functions return unsigned and arguably should be MCRegister
HexagonBitSimplify.cpp - Function takes BitTracker::RegisterRef which appears to be unsigned&
MachineVerifier.cpp - Ambiguous operator==() given MCRegister and const Register
PPCFastISel.cpp - No Register::operator-=()
PeepholeOptimizer.cpp - TargetInstrInfo::optimizeLoadInstr() takes an unsigned&
MachineTraceMetrics.cpp - MachineTraceMetrics lacks a suitable constructor

Manual fixups in:
ARMFastISel.cpp - ARMEmitLoad() now takes a Register& instead of unsigned&
HexagonSplitDouble.cpp - Ternary operator was ambiguous between unsigned/Register
HexagonConstExtenders.cpp - Has a local class named Register, used llvm::Register instead of Register.
PPCFastISel.cpp - PPCEmitLoad() now takes a Register& instead of unsigned&

Depends on D65919

Reviewers: arsenm, bogner, craig.topper, RKSimon

Reviewed By: arsenm

Subscribers: RKSimon, craig.topper, lenary, aemerson, wuzish, jholewinski, MatzeB, qcolombet, dschuff, jyknight, dylanmckay, sdardis, nemanjai, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, sbc100, jgravelle-google, kristof.beyls, hiraditya, aheejin, kbarton, fedor.sergeev, javed.absar, asb, rbar, johnrusso, simoncook, apazos, sabuasal, niosHD, jrtc27, MaskRay, zzheng, edward-jones, atanasyan, rogfer01, MartinMosbeck, brucehoult, the_o, tpr, PkmX, jocewei, jsji, Petar.Avramovic, asbirlea, Jim, s.egerton, llvm-commits

Tags: #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65962

llvm-svn: 369041
2019-08-15 19:22:08 +00:00
Daniel Sanders 2bea69bf65 Finish moving TargetRegisterInfo::isVirtualRegister() and friends to llvm::Register as started by r367614. NFC
llvm-svn: 367633
2019-08-01 23:27:28 +00:00
Chandler Carruth 2946cd7010 Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636
2019-01-19 08:50:56 +00:00
Nicola Zaghen d34e60ca85 Rename DEBUG macro to LLVM_DEBUG.
The DEBUG() macro is very generic so it might clash with other projects.
The renaming was done as follows:
- git grep -l 'DEBUG' | xargs sed -i 's/\bDEBUG\s\?(/LLVM_DEBUG(/g'
- git diff -U0 master | ../clang/tools/clang-format/clang-format-diff.py -i -p1 -style LLVM
- Manual change to APInt
- Manually chage DOCS as regex doesn't match it.

In the transition period the DEBUG() macro is still present and aliased
to the LLVM_DEBUG() one.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43624

llvm-svn: 332240
2018-05-14 12:53:11 +00:00
Yonghong Song 82bf8bcb4f bpf: Enhance debug information for peephole optimization passes
Add more debug information for peephole optimization passes.

These would only be enabled for debug version binary and could help
analyzing why some optimization opportunities were missed.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327371
2018-03-13 06:47:07 +00:00
Yonghong Song e91802f336 bpf: New post-RA peephole optimization pass to eliminate bad RA codegen
This new pass eliminate identical move:

  MOV rA, rA

This is particularly possible to happen when sub-register support
enabled. The special type cast insn MOV_32_64 involves different
register class on src (i32) and dst (i64), RA could generate useless
instruction due to this.

This pass also could serve as the bast for further post-RA optimization.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327370
2018-03-13 06:47:06 +00:00
Yonghong Song 1d28a759d9 bpf: Support subregister definition check on PHI node
This patch relax the subregister definition check on Phi node.
Previously, we just cancel the optimizatoin when the definition is Phi
node while actually we could further check the definitions of incoming
parameters of PHI node.

This helps catch more elimination opportunities.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327368
2018-03-13 06:47:04 +00:00
Yonghong Song c88bcdec43 bpf: Extends zero extension elimination beyond comparison instructions
The current zero extension elimination was restricted to operands of
comparison. It actually could be extended to more cases.

For example:

  int *inc_p (int *p, unsigned a)
  {
    return p + a;
  }

'a' will be promoted to i64 during addition, and the zero extension could
be eliminated as well.

For the elimination optimization, it should be much better to start
recognizing the candidate sequence from the SRL instruction instead of J*
instructions.

This patch makes it an generic zero extension elimination pass instead of
one restricted with comparison.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327367
2018-03-13 06:47:03 +00:00
Yonghong Song 905d13c123 bpf: J*_RR should check both operands
There is a mistake in current code that we "break" out the optimization
when the first operand of J*_RR doesn't qualify the elimination. This
caused some elimination opportunities missed, for example the one in the
testcase.

The code should just fall through to handle the second operand.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327366
2018-03-13 06:47:02 +00:00
Yonghong Song 89e47ac671 bpf: Tighten subregister definition check
The current subregister definition check stops after the MOV_32_64
instruction.

This means we are thinking all the following instruction sequences
are safe to be eliminated:

  MOV_32_64 rB, wA
  SLL_ri    rB, rB, 32
  SRL_ri    rB, rB, 32

However, this is *not* true. The source subregister wA of MOV_32_64 could
come from a implicit truncation of 64-bit register in which case the high
bits of the 64-bit register is not zeroed, therefore we can't eliminate
above sequence.

For example, for i32_val, we shouldn't do the elimination:

  long long bar ();

  int foo (int b, int c)
  {
    unsigned int i32_val = (unsigned int) bar();

    if (i32_val < 10)
      return b;
    else
      return c;
  }

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 327365
2018-03-13 06:47:00 +00:00
Yonghong Song 60fed1fef0 bpf: New optimization pass for eliminating unnecessary i32 promotions
This pass performs peephole optimizations to cleanup ugly code sequences at
MachineInstruction layer.

Currently, the only optimization in this pass is to eliminate type
promotion
sequences for zero extending 32-bit subregisters to 64-bit registers.

If the compiler could prove the zero extended source come from 32-bit
subregistere then it is safe to erase those promotion sequece, because the
upper half of the underlying 64-bit registers were zeroed implicitly
already.

Signed-off-by: Jiong Wang <jiong.wang@netronome.com>
Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
llvm-svn: 325991
2018-02-23 23:49:32 +00:00