We already do not unroll loops with vector instructions under MVE, but
that does not include the remainder loops that the vectorizer produces.
These remainder loops will be rarely executed and are not worth
unrolling, as the trip count is likely to be low if they get executed at
all. Luckily they get llvm.loop.isvectorized to make recognizing them
simpler.
We have wanted to do this for a while but hit issues with low overhead
loops being reverted due to difficult registry allocation. With recent
changes that seems to be less of an issue now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90055
From C11 and C++11 onwards, a forward-progress requirement has been
introduced for both languages. In the case of C, loops with non-constant
conditionals that do not have any observable side-effects (as defined by
6.8.5p6) can be assumed by the implementation to terminate, and in the
case of C++, this assumption extends to all functions. The clang
frontend will emit the `mustprogress` function attribute for C++
functions (D86233, D85393, D86841) and emit the loop metadata
`llvm.loop.mustprogress` for every loop in C11 or later that has a
non-constant conditional.
This patch modifies LoopDeletion so that only loops with
the `llvm.loop.mustprogress` metadata or loops contained in functions
that are required to make progress (`mustprogress` or `willreturn`) are
checked for observable side-effects. If these loops do not have an
observable side-effect, then we delete them.
Loops without observable side-effects that do not satisfy the above
conditions will not be deleted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86844
Currently, LoopDeletion refuses to remove dead loops with no exit blocks
because it cannot statically determine the control flow after it removes
the block. This leads to miscompiles if the loop is an infinite loop and
should've been removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90115
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.
60b852092c introduced SCEV verification to
deleteDeadLoop, but it appears this check is currently a bit over-eager
and some users of deleteDeadLoop appear to only patch up SE after
calling it (e.g. PR47753).
Remove the extra check for now. We can consider adding it back after we
tracked down the source of the inconsistency for PR47753.
After D71539, we need to forget the loop before setting the incoming
values of phi nodes in exit blocks, because we are looking through those
phi nodes now and the SCEV expression could depend on the loop phi. If
we update the phi nodes before forgetting the loop, we miss those users
during invalidation.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88167
Summary:
Avoid exposing details about how children are stored. This will enable
subsequent type-erasure changes.
New methods are introduced to cover common access patterns.
Change-Id: Idb5f4b1b9c84e4cc71ddb39bb52a388682f5674f
Reviewers: arsenm, RKSimon, mehdi_amini, courbet
Subscribers: qcolombet, sdardis, wdng, hiraditya, jrtc27, zzheng, atanasyan, asbirlea, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83083
This reverts commit 29b2c1ca72.
The patch causes the DT verifier failure like:
DominatorTree is different than a freshly computed one!
Not sure the patch itself it wrong but revert to investigate the failure.
Currently we allow peeling of the loops if there is a exiting latch block
and all other exits are blocks ending with deopt.
Actually we want that exit would end up with deopt unconditionally but
it is not required that exit itself ends with deopt.
Reviewers: reames, ashlykov, fhahn, apilipenko, fedor.sergeev
Reviewed By: apilipenko
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, dantrushin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81140
Summary:
Currently, `rewriteLoopExitValues()`'s logic is roughly as following:
> Loop over each incoming value in each PHI node.
> Query whether the SCEV for that incoming value is high-cost.
> Expand the SCEV.
> Perform sanity check (`isValidRewrite()`, D51582)
> Record the info
> Afterwards, see if we can drop the loop given replacements.
> Maybe perform replacements.
The problem is that we interleave SCEV cost checking and expansion.
This is A Problem, because `isHighCostExpansion()` takes special care
to not bill for the expansions that were already expanded, and we can reuse.
While it makes sense in general - if we know that we will expand some SCEV,
all the other SCEV's costs should account for that, which might cause
some of them to become non-high-cost too, and cause chain reaction.
But that isn't what we are doing here. We expand *all* SCEV's, unconditionally.
So every next SCEV's cost will be affected by the already-performed expansions
for previous SCEV's. Even if we are not planning on keeping
some of the expansions we performed.
Worse yet, this current "bonus" depends on the exact PHI node
incoming value processing order. This is completely wrong.
As an example of an issue, see @dmajor's `pr45835.ll` - if we happen to have
a PHI node with two(!) identical high-cost incoming values for the same basic blocks,
we would decide first time around that it is high-cost, expand it,
and immediately decide that it is not high-cost because we have an expansion
that we could reuse (because we expanded it right before, temporarily),
and replace the second incoming value but not the first one;
thus resulting in a broken PHI.
What we instead should do for now, is not perform any expansions
until after we've queried all the costs.
Later, in particular after `isValidRewrite()` is an assertion (D51582)
we could improve upon that, but in a more coherent fashion.
See [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45835 | PR45835 ]]
Reviewers: dmajor, reames, mkazantsev, fhahn, efriedma
Reviewed By: dmajor, mkazantsev
Subscribers: smeenai, nikic, hiraditya, javed.absar, llvm-commits, dmajor
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79787
SCEVExpander modifies the underlying function so it is more suitable in
Transforms/Utils, rather than Analysis. This allows using other
transform utils in SCEVExpander.
This patch was originally committed as b8a3c34eee, but broke the
modules build, as LoopAccessAnalysis was using the Expander.
The code-gen part of LAA was moved to lib/Transforms recently, so this
patch can be landed again.
Reviewers: sanjoy.google, efriedma, reames
Reviewed By: sanjoy.google
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71537
Currently LAA's uses of ScalarEvolutionExpander blocks moving the
expander from Analysis to Transforms. Conceptually the expander does not
fit into Analysis (it is only used for code generation) and
runtime-check generation also seems to be better suited as a
transformation utility.
Reviewers: Ayal, anemet
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78460
This allows forward declarations of PointerCheck, which in turn reduce
the number of times LoopAccessAnalysis needs to be included.
Ultimately this helps with moving runtime check generation to
Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h, without having to include it there.
Reviewers: anemet, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78458
Most of the includes in LoopUtils.h are not required in the header and
they can be replaced by forward declarations.
Unfortunately includes of TargetTransformInfo.h and IVDescriptors.h pull
in a bunch of additional things, but there is no easy way to get rid of
them at the moment I think.
Summary:
Remove usages of asserting vector getters in Type in preparation for the
VectorType refactor. The existence of these functions complicates the
refactor while adding little value.
Reviewers: rriddle, sdesmalen, efriedma
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77260
As discussed in post-commit review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501
if the goal of this is to help vectorizer, then we should actually
be teaching vectorizer to do this, because right now this rewrite
is still budget-limited, which isn't what we'd want.
Additionally, while the rest of the patch series was universally profitable,
this particular patch is reportedly (https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501#1905171)
exposing cost-modeling issues on ARM.
So let's just back this particular patch out. Once there's an undo transform,
this could be considered for reintegration.
This reverts commit 44edc6fd2c.
Also adds a force-reduction-intrinsics option for testing, for forcing
the generation of reduction intrinsics even when the backend is not
requesting them.
Summary:
Current peeling implementation bails out in case of loop nests.
The patch introduces a field in TargetTransformInfo structure that
certain targets can use to relax the constraints if it's
profitable (disabled by default).
Also additional option is added to enable peeling manually for
experimenting and testing purposes.
Reviewers: fhahn, lebedev.ri, xbolva00
Reviewed By: xbolva00
Subscribers: RKSimon, xbolva00, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70304
Summary:
Replacing uses of IV outside of the loop is likely generally useful,
but `rewriteLoopExitValues()` is cautious, and if it isn't told to always
perform the replacement, and there are hard uses of IV in loop,
it doesn't replace.
In [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]],
that prevents `-indvars` from replacing uses of induction variable
after the loop, which might be one of the optimization failures
preventing that code from being vectorized.
Instead, now that the cost model is fixed, i believe we should be
a little bit more optimistic, and also perform replacement
if we believe it is within our budget.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44668 | PR44668 ]].
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, asbirlea, fhahn, skatkov
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: nikic, hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73501
Summary:
In future patches`SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()` will respect the budget allocated by performing TTI cost modelling.
This is a fully NFC patch to make things reviewable.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73705
Summary:
Future patches will make use of TTI to perform cost-model-driven `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansionHelper()`
This is a fully NFC patch to make things reviewable.
Reviewers: reames, mkazantsev, wmi, sanjoy
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Subscribers: hiraditya, zzheng, javed.absar, dmgreen, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73704
Summary:
Method appendLoopsToWorklist is duplicate in LoopUnroll and in the
LoopPassManager as an internal method. Make it an utility.
Reviewers: dmgreen, chandlerc, fedor.sergeev, yamauchi
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73569
We may calculate reassociable math ops in arbitrary order when creating a shuffle reduction,
so there's no guarantee that things like 'nsw' hold on those intermediate values. Drop all
poison-generating flags for safety.
This change is limited to shuffle reductions because I don't think we have a problem in the
general case (where we intersect flags of each scalar op that goes into a vector op), but if
there's evidence of other cases being wrong, we can extend this fix to cover those cases.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44536
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73727
Summary: Vectorized loop processes VFxUF number of elements in one iteration thus total number of iterations decreases proportionally. In addition epilog loop may not have more than VFxUF - 1 iterations. This patch updates profile information accordingly.
Reviewers: hsaito, Ayal, fhahn, reames, silvas, dcaballe, SjoerdMeijer, mkuper, DaniilSuchkov
Reviewed By: Ayal, DaniilSuchkov
Subscribers: fedor.sergeev, hiraditya, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67905
Summary: Current implementation of getLoopEstimatedTripCount returns 1 iteration less than it should. The reason is that in bottom tested loop first iteration is executed before first back branch is taken. For example for loop with !{!"branch_weights", i32 1 // taken, i32 1 // exit} metadata getLoopEstimatedTripCount gives 1 while actual number of iterations is 2.
Reviewers: Ayal, fhahn
Reviewed By: Ayal
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, zzheng, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71990
This moves `rewriteLoopExitValues()` from IndVarSimplify to LoopUtils thus
making it a generic loop utility function. This allows to rewrite loop exit
values by just calling this function without running the whole IndVarSimplify
pass.
We use this in D72714 to rematerialise the iteration count in exit blocks, so
that we can clean-up loop update expressions inside the hardware-loops later.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72602
This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.
I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h
Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.
Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211
Summary:
I'm not planning to check this in at the moment, but feedback is very welcome, in particular how this affects performance.
The feedback obtains here will guide the next steps towards enabling this.
This patch enables the use of MemorySSA in the loop pass manager.
Passes that currently use MemorySSA:
- EarlyCSE
Passes that use MemorySSA after this patch:
- EarlyCSE
- LICM
- SimpleLoopUnswitch
Loop passes that update MemorySSA (and do not use it yet, but could use it after this patch):
- LoopInstSimplify
- LoopSimplifyCFG
- LoopUnswitch
- LoopRotate
- LoopSimplify
- LCSSA
Loop passes that do *not* update MemorySSA:
- IndVarSimplify
- LoopDelete
- LoopIdiom
- LoopSink
- LoopUnroll
- LoopInterchange
- LoopUnrollAndJam
- LoopVectorize
- LoopReroll
- IRCE
Reviewers: chandlerc, george.burgess.iv, davide, sanjoy, gberry
Subscribers: jlebar, Prazek, dmgreen, jdoerfert, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58311
llvm-svn: 370384
For some targets the LICM pass can result in sub-optimal code in some
cases where it would be better not to run the pass, but it isn't
always possible to suppress the transformations heuristically.
Where the front-end has insight into such cases it is beneficial
to attach loop metadata to disable the pass - this change adds the
llvm.licm.disable metadata to enable that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64557
llvm-svn: 368296
David Green