At the moment, getMemoryOpCost returns 1 for all inputs if CostKind is
CodeSize or SizeAndLatency. This fools LoopUnroll into thinking memory
operations on large vectors have a cost of one, even if they will get
expanded to a large number of memory operations in the backend.
This patch updates getMemoryOpCost to return the cost for the type
legalization for both CodeSize and SizeAndLatency. This should more
accurately reflect the number of memory operations required.
I am not sure how latency should properly be included in SizeAndLatency
from the description, but returning the size cost should be clearly more
accurate.
This does not cause any binary changes when building
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 with -O3 -flto for AArch64, likely because
large vector memops are not really formed by code emitted from Clang.
But using the C/C++ matrix extension can easily result in code with very
large vector operations directly from Clang, e.g.
https://clang.godbolt.org/z/6xzxcTGvb
Reviewed By: samparker
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100291
Added cost estimation for switch instruction, updated costs of branches, fixed
phi cost.
Had to increase `-amdgpu-unroll-threshold-if` default value since conditional
branch cost (size) was corrected to higher value.
Test renamed to "control-flow.ll".
Removed redundant code in `X86TTIImpl::getCFInstrCost()` and
`PPCTTIImpl::getCFInstrCost()`.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96805
This removes the restriction that only Thumb2 targets enable runtime
loop unrolling, allowing it for Thumb1 only cores as well. The existing
T2 heuristics are used (for the time being) to control when and how
unrolling is performed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99588
This UpperBound unrolling was already enabled so long as a series of
conditions in ARMTTIImpl::getUnrollingPreferences pass. This just always
enables it as it can help fully unroll loops that would not otherwise
pass those tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99174
`runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll`
Added -unroll-runtime-other-exit-predictable=false in
runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll to make it more robust.
runtime-multiexit-heuristic.ll intention is to test
-unroll-runtime-multi-exit=false, so the default value of
-unroll-runtime-other-exit-predictable should not impact the result.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98098
These intrinsics, not the icmp+select are the canonical form nowadays,
so we might as well directly emit them.
This should not cause any regressions, but if it does,
then then they would needed to be fixed regardless.
Note that this doesn't deal with `SCEVExpander::isHighCostExpansion()`,
but that is a pessimization, not a correctness issue.
Additionally, the non-intrinsic form has issues with undef,
see https://reviews.llvm.org/D88287#2587863
I think we can use here same logic as for nonnull.
strlen(X) - X must be noundef => valid pointer.
for libcalls with size arg, we add noundef only if size is known and greater than 0 - so pointers must be noundef (valid ones)
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, aqjune
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95122
In the motivating example from https://llvm.org/PR49171 and
reduced test here, we would unroll and clone assumes so much
that compile-time effectively became infinite while analyzing
all of those assumes.
Enable partial and runtime unrolling with a threshold of 30, which
was derived from a large number of kernels running on node and
wasmtime for amd64 and aarch64.
Unrolling is enabled by default at -O2 and -O3 and is disabled at
-Oz and -Os. Compiling with -Os is recommended if the wasm binary
size is the most important factor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95125
Extend applyLoopGuards() to take into account conditions/assumes proving some
value %v to be divisible by D by rewriting %v to (%v / D) * D. This lets the
loop unroller and the loop vectorizer identify more loops as not requiring
remainder loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95521
The reduction of a sanitizer build failure when enabling the dominance check (D95335) showed that loop peeling also needs to take care of scope duplication, just like loop unrolling (D92887).
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95544
This is a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39282. Compared to D90104, this version is based on part of the full restrict patched (D68484) and uses the `@llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl` intrinsic to track the location where !noalias and !alias.scope scopes have been introduced. This allows us to only duplicate the scopes that are really needed.
Notes:
- it also includes changes and tests from D90104
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92887
I have previously tried doing that in
b33fbbaa34 / d38205144f,
but eventually it was pointed out that the approach taken there
was just broken wrt how the uses of bonus instructions are updated
to account for the fact that they should now use either bonus instruction
or the cloned bonus instruction. In particluar, all that manual handling
of PHI nodes in successors was just wrong.
But, the fix is actually much much simpler than my initial approach:
just tell SSAUpdate about both instances of bonus instruction,
and let it deal with all the PHI handling.
Alive2 confirms that the reproducers from the original bugs (@pr48450*)
are now handled correctly.
This effectively reverts commit 59560e8589,
effectively relanding b33fbbaa34.
Loop peeling assumes that the loop's latch is a conditional branch. Add
a check to canPeel that explicitly checks for this, and testcases that
otherwise fail an assertion when trying to peel a loop whose back-edge
is a switch case or the non-unwind edge of an invoke.
Reviewed By: skatkov, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94995
Loop peeling as a last step triggers loop simplification and this
can change the loop structure. As a result all cashed values like
latch branch becomes invalid.
Patch re-structure the code to take into account the possible
changes caused by peeling.
Reviewers: dmgreen, Meinersbur, etiotto, fhahn, efriedma, bmahjour
Reviewed By: Meinersbur, fhahn
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93686
This commit copies existing tests at llvm/Transforms containing
'shufflevector X, undef' and replaces them with 'shufflevector X, poison'.
The new copied tests have *-inseltpoison.ll suffix at its file name
(as db7a2f347f did)
See https://reviews.llvm.org/D93793
Test files listed using
grep -R -E "^[^;]*shufflevector <.*> .*, <.*> undef" | cut -d":" -f1 | uniq
Test files copied & updated using
file_org=llvm/test/Transforms/$1
if [[ "$file_org" = *-inseltpoison.ll ]]; then
file=$file_org
else
file=${file_org%.ll}-inseltpoison.ll
if [ ! -f $file ]; then
cp $file_org $file
fi
fi
sed -i -E 's/^([^;]*)shufflevector <(.*)> (.*), <(.*)> undef/\1shufflevector <\2> \3, <\4> poison/g' $file
head -1 $file | grep "Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py" -q
if [ "$?" == 1 ]; then
echo "$file : should be manually updated"
# The test is manually updated
exit 1
fi
python3 ./llvm/utils/update_test_checks.py --opt-binary=./build-releaseassert/bin/opt $file
This commit copies existing tests at llvm/Transforms and replaces
'insertelement undef' in those files with 'insertelement poison'.
(see https://reviews.llvm.org/D93586)
Tests listed using this script:
grep -R -E '^[^;]*insertelement <.*> undef,' . | cut -d":" -f1 | uniq |
wc -l
Tests updated:
file_org=llvm/test/Transforms/$1
file=${file_org%.ll}-inseltpoison.ll
cp $file_org $file
sed -i -E 's/^([^;]*)insertelement <(.*)> undef/\1insertelement <\2> poison/g' $file
head -1 $file | grep "Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py" -q
if [ "$?" == 1 ]; then
echo "$file : should be manually updated"
# I manually updated the script
exit 1
fi
python3 ./llvm/utils/update_test_checks.py --opt-binary=./build-releaseassert/bin/opt $file
... so just ensure that we pass DomTreeUpdater it into it.
Fixes DomTree preservation for a large number of tests,
all of which are marked as such so that they do not regress.
First step after e113317958,
in these tests, DomTree is valid afterwards, so mark them as such,
so that they don't regress.
In further steps, SimplifyCFG transforms shall taught to preserve DomTree,
in as small steps as possible.
Even though d38205144f was mostly a correct
fix for the external non-PHI users, it's not a *generally* correct fix,
because the 'placeholder' values in those trivial PHI's we create
shouldn't be *always* 'undef', but the PHI itself for the backedges,
else we end up with wrong value, as the `@pr48450_2` test shows.
But we can't just do that, because we can't check that the PHI
can be it's own incoming value when coming from certain predecessor,
because we don't have a dominator tree.
So until we can address this correctness problem properly,
ensure that we don't perform the transformation
if there are such problematic external uses.
Making dominator tree available there is going to be involved,
since `-simplifycfg` pass currently does not preserve/update domtree...
The NPM processes loops in forward program order, whereas the legacy PM
processes them in reverse program order. No reason to test both PMs
here, so just stick to the NPM.
This was orginally committed in 2245fb8aaa.
but was immediately reverted in f3abd54958
because of a PHI handling issue.
Original commit message:
1. It doesn't make sense to enforce that the bonus instruction
is only used once in it's basic block. What matters is
whether those user instructions fit within our budget, sure,
but that is another question.
2. It doesn't make sense to enforce that said bonus instructions
are only used within their basic block. Perhaps the branch
condition isn't using the value computed by said bonus instruction,
and said bonus instruction is simply being calculated
to be used in successors?
So iff we can clone bonus instructions, to lift these restrictions,
we just need to carefully update their external uses
to use the new cloned instructions.
Notably, this transform (even without this change) appears to be
poison-unsafe as per alive2, but is otherwise (including the patch) legal.
We don't introduce any new PHI nodes, but only "move" the instructions
around, i'm not really seeing much potential for extra cost modelling
for the transform, especially since now we allow at most one such
bonus instruction by default.
This causes the fold to fire +11.4% more (13216 -> 14725)
as of vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed.
The motivational pattern is IEEE-754-2008 Binary16->Binary32
extension code:
ca57d77fb2/src/librawspeed/common/FloatingPoint.h (L115-L120)
^ that should be a switch, but it is not now: https://godbolt.org/z/bvja5v
That being said, even thought this seemed like this would fix it: https://godbolt.org/z/xGq3TM
apparently that fold is happening somewhere else afterall,
so something else also has a similar 'artificial' restriction.
Many bots are unhappy, at the very least missed a few codegen tests,
and possibly this has a logic hole inducing a miscompile
(will be really awesome to have ready reproducer..)
Need to investigate.
This reverts commit 2245fb8aaa.
1. It doesn't make sense to enforce that the bonus instruction
is only used once in it's basic block. What matters is
whether those user instructions fit within our budget, sure,
but that is another question.
2. It doesn't make sense to enforce that said bonus instructions
are only used within their basic block. Perhaps the branch
condition isn't using the value computed by said bonus instruction,
and said bonus instruction is simply being calculated
to be used in successors?
So iff we can clone bonus instructions, to lift these restrictions,
we just need to carefully update their external uses
to use the new cloned instructions.
Notably, this transform (even without this change) appears to be
poison-unsafe as per alive2, but is otherwise (including the patch) legal.
We don't introduce any new PHI nodes, but only "move" the instructions
around, i'm not really seeing much potential for extra cost modelling
for the transform, especially since now we allow at most one such
bonus instruction by default.
This causes the fold to fire +11.4% more (13216 -> 14725)
as of vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed.
The motivational pattern is IEEE-754-2008 Binary16->Binary32
extension code:
ca57d77fb2/src/librawspeed/common/FloatingPoint.h (L115-L120)
^ that should be a switch, but it is not now: https://godbolt.org/z/bvja5v
That being said, even thought this seemed like this would fix it: https://godbolt.org/z/xGq3TM
apparently that fold is happening somewhere else afterall,
so something else also has a similar 'artificial' restriction.
See discussion in D90554.
This is a partial un-revert of 32dd5870ee. I'm adding
back the baseline tests first, so we don't have to
back-track as much in case there are still problems.
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.
This was changed recently with D90554 / f7eac51b9b
...because we had a regression testing blindspot for intrinsics
that are expected to be lowered to libcalls.
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.
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
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
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
Add new loop metadata amdgpu.loop.unroll.threshold to allow the initial AMDGPU
specific unroll threshold value to be specified on a loop by loop basis.
The intention is to be able to to allow more nuanced hints, e.g. specifying a
low threshold value to indicate that a loop may be unrolled if cheap enough
rather than using the all or nothing llvm.loop.unroll.disable metadata.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84779
I believe the intention of this test added in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71687 was to test LoopFullUnrollPass with
clang's -fno-unroll-loops, not its interaction with optnone. Loop
unrolling passes don't run under optnone/-O0.
Also added back unintentionally removed -disable-loop-unrolling from
https://reviews.llvm.org/D85578.
Reviewed By: echristo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86485
As FIXME said, they really should be checking for a single user,
not use, so let's do that. It is not *that* unusual to have
the same value as incoming value in a PHI node, not unlike
how a PHI may have the same incoming basic block more than once.
There isn't a nice way to do that, Value::users() isn't uniqified,
and Value only tracks it's uses, not Users, so the check is
potentially costly since it does indeed potentially involes
traversing the entire use list of a value.
The `UnrollMaxBlockToAnalyze` parameter is used at the stage when we have no
information about a loop body BB cost. In some cases, e.g. for simple loop
```
for(int i=0; i<32; ++i){
D = Arr2[i*8 + C1];
Arr1[i*64 + C2] += C3 * D;
Arr1[i*64 + C2 + 2048] += C4 * D;
}
```
current default parameter value is not enough to run deeper cost analyze so the
loop is not completely unrolled.
Reviewed By: rampitec
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86248
This is in preparation for enabling proper handling of optnone under the
NPM. Most optimizations won't run on an optnone function.
Previously the test would rely on lots of optimizations to optimize the
IR into a simple infinite loop. This is an optnone function, so clearly
that shouldn't be the case.
This IR was found by printing the module before the LoopFullUnrollerPass ran.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85578
When TTI was updated to use an explicit cost, TCK_CodeSize was used
although the default implicit cost would have been the hand-wavey
cost of size and latency. So, revert back to this behaviour. This is
not expected to have (much) impact on targets since most (all?) of
them return the same value for SizeAndLatency and CodeSize.
When optimising for size, the logic has been changed to query
CodeSize costs instead of SizeAndLatency.
This patch also adds a testing option in the unroller so that
OptSize thresholds can be specified.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85723
Nikita Popov