I have added a new TTI interface called enableOrderedReductions() that
controls whether or not ordered reductions should be enabled for a
given target. By default this returns false, whereas for AArch64 it
returns true and we rely upon the cost model to make sensible
vectorisation choices. It is still possible to override the new TTI
interface by setting the command line flag:
-force-ordered-reductions=true|false
I have added a new RUN line to show that we use ordered reductions by
default for SVE and Neon:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-strict-fadd.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106653
For tight loops like this:
float r = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
r += a[i];
}
it's better not to vectorise at -O3 using fixed-width ordered reductions
on AArch64 targets. Although the resulting number of instructions in the
generated code ends up being comparable to not vectorising at all, there
may be additional costs on some CPUs, for example perhaps the scheduling
is worse. It makes sense to deter vectorisation in tight loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108292
Removed AArch64 usage of the getMaxVScale interface, replacing it with
the vscale_range(min, max) IR Attribute.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106277
Previously we emitted a "does not support scalable vectors"
remark for all targets whenever vectorisation is attempted. This
pollutes the output for architectures that don't support scalable
vectors and is likely confusing to the user.
Instead this patch introduces a debug message that reports when
scalable vectorisation is allowed by the target and only issues
the previous remark when scalable vectorisation is specifically
requested, for example:
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(2, scalable)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108028
I have added RUN lines to both:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-strict-fadd.ll
to show the default behaviour is to not vectorise when the following
flag is unset:
-force-ordered-reductions
This patch updates ConstantVector::getSplat to use poison instead
of undef when using insertelement/shufflevector to splat.
This follows on from D93793.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107751
Since all operands to ExtractValue must be loop-invariant when we deem
the loop vectorizable, we can consider ExtractValue to be uniform.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107286
This change wasn't strictly necessary for D106164 and could be removed.
This patch addresses the post-commit comments from @fhahn on D106164, and
also changes sve-widen-gep.ll to use the same IR test as shown in
pointer-induction.ll.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106878
I'm renaming the flag because a future patch will add a new
enableOrderedReductions() TTI interface and so the meaning of this
flag will change to be one of forcing the target to enable/disable
them. Also, since other places in LoopVectorize.cpp use the word
'Ordered' instead of 'strict' I changed the flag to match.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107264
It was writing to the source directory (which may not be writeable),
rather than using %t.
Fixes: a5dd6c6cf9 ("[LoopVectorize] Don't interleave scalar ordered reductions for inner loops")
Consider the following loop:
void foo(float *dst, float *src, int N) {
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
dst[i] = 0.0;
for (int j = 0; j < N; j++) {
dst[i] += src[(i * N) + j];
}
}
}
When we are not building with -Ofast we may attempt to vectorise the
inner loop using ordered reductions instead. In addition we also try
to select an appropriate interleave count for the inner loop. However,
when choosing a VF=1 the inner loop will be scalar and there is existing
code in selectInterleaveCount that limits the interleave count to 2
for reductions due to concerns about increasing the critical path.
For ordered reductions this problem is even worse due to the additional
data dependency, and so I've added code to simply disable interleaving
for scalar ordered reductions for now.
Test added here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd-vf1.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106646
The loop vectorizer may decide to use tail folding when the trip-count
is low. When that happens, scalable VFs are no longer a candidate,
since tail folding/predication is not yet supported for scalable vectors.
This can be re-enabled in a future patch.
Reviewed By: kmclaughlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106657
Invalid costs can be used to avoid vectorization with a given VF, which is
used for scalable vectors to avoid things that the code-generator cannot
handle. If we override the cost using the -force-target-instruction-cost
option of the LV, we would override this mechanism, rendering the flag useless.
This change ensures the cost is only overriden when the original cost that
was calculated is valid. That allows the flag to be used in combination
with the -scalable-vectorization option.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106677
This change moves most of `sve-inductions.ll` to non-AArch64 specific
LV tests using the `-target-supports-scalable-vectors` flag, because they're
not explicitly AArch64-specific. One test builds on AArch64-specific
knowledge regarding masked loads/stores, and remains in sve-inductions.ll.
Scalarization for scalable vectors is not (yet) supported, so the
LV discards a VF when scalarization is chosen as the widening
decision. It should therefore not assert that the VF is not scalable
when it computes the decision to scalarize.
The code can get here when both the interleave-cost, gather/scatter cost
and scalarization-cost are all illegal. This may e.g. happen for SVE
when the VF=1, to avoid generating `<vscale x 1 x eltty>` types that
the code-generator cannot yet handle.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106656
This fixes an issue that was found in D105199, where a GEP instruction
is used both as the address of a store, as well as the value of a store.
For the former, the value is scalar after vectorization, but the latter
(as value) requires widening.
Other code in that function seems to prevent similar cases from happening,
but it seems this case was missed.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106164
I have added a new FastMathFlags parameter to getArithmeticReductionCost
to indicate what type of reduction we are performing:
1. Tree-wise. This is the typical fast-math reduction that involves
continually splitting a vector up into halves and adding each
half together until we get a scalar result. This is the default
behaviour for integers, whereas for floating point we only do this
if reassociation is allowed.
2. Ordered. This now allows us to estimate the cost of performing
a strict vector reduction by treating it as a series of scalar
operations in lane order. This is the case when FP reassociation
is not permitted. For scalable vectors this is more difficult
because at compile time we do not know how many lanes there are,
and so we use the worst case maximum vscale value.
I have also fixed getTypeBasedIntrinsicInstrCost to pass in the
FastMathFlags, which meant fixing up some X86 tests where we always
assumed the vector.reduce.fadd/mul intrinsics were 'fast'.
New tests have been added here:
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/reduce-fadd.ll
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/sve-intrinsics.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/strict-fadd-cost.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-strict-fadd-cost.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105432
This patch avoids computing discounts for predicated instructions when the
VF is scalable.
There is no support for vectorization of loops with division because the
vectorizer cannot guarantee that zero divisions will not happen.
This loop now does not use VF scalable
```
for (long long i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (cond[i])
a[i] /= b[i];
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101916
As noticed on D106352, after we've folded "(select C, (gep Ptr, Idx), Ptr) -> (gep Ptr, (select C, Idx, 0))" if the inner Ptr was also a (now one use) gep we could then merge the geps, using the sum of the indices instead.
I've limited this to basic 2-op geps - a more general case further down InstCombinerImpl.visitGetElementPtrInst doesn't have the one-use limitation but only creates the add if it can be created via SimplifyAddInst.
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/f8pLfD (Thanks Roman!)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106450
This patch returns an Invalid cost from getInstructionCost() for alloca
instructions if the VF is scalable, as otherwise loops which contain
these instructions will crash when attempting to scalarize the alloca.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105824
The original patch was:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105806
There were some issues with undeterministic behaviour of the sorting
function, which led to scalable-call.ll passing and/or failing. This
patch fixes the issue by numbering all instructions in the array first,
and using that number as the order, which should provide a consistent
ordering.
This reverts commit a607f64118.
The sort function for emitting an OptRemark was not deterministic,
which caused scalable-call.ll to fail on some buildbots. This patch
fixes that.
This patch also fixes an issue where `Instruction::comesBefore()`
is called when two Instructions are in different basic blocks,
which would otherwise cause an assertion failure.
This patch emits remarks for instructions that have invalid costs for
a given set of vectorization factors. Some example output:
t.c:4:19: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): load
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
t.c:4:14: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1, vscale x 2, vscale x 4): call to llvm.sin.f32
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
t.c:4:12: remark: Instruction with invalid costs prevented vectorization at VF=(vscale x 1): store
dst[i] = sinf(src[i]);
^
Reviewed By: fhahn, kmclaughlin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105806
At the moment, <vscale x 1 x eltty> are not yet fully handled by the
code-generator, so to avoid vectorizing loops with that VF, we mark the
cost for these types as invalid.
The reason for not adding a new "TTI::getMinimumScalableVF" is because
the type is supposed to be a type that can be legalized. It partially is,
although the support for these types need some more work.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103882
This patch adds a TTI function, isElementTypeLegalForScalableVector, to query
whether it is possible to vectorize a given element type. This is called by
isLegalToVectorizeInstTypesForScalable to reject scalable vectorization if
any of the instruction types in the loop are unsupported, e.g:
int foo(__int128_t* ptr, int N)
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(4, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
ptr[i] = ptr[i] + 42;
This example currently crashes if we attempt to vectorize since i128 is not a
supported type for scalable vectorization.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102253
Loads of <4 x i8> vectors were modeled as extremely expensive. And while we
don't have a load instruction that supports this, it isn't that expensive to
create a vector of i8 elements. The codegen for this was fixed/optimised in
D105110. This now tweaks the cost model and enables SLP vectorisation of my
motivating case loadi8.ll.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103629
Previously in setCostBasedWideningDecision if we encountered an
invariant store we just assumed that we could scalarize the store
and called getUniformMemOpCost to get the associated cost.
However, for scalable vectors this is not an option because it is
not currently possibly to scalarize the store. At the moment we
crash in VPReplicateRecipe::execute when trying to scalarize the
store.
Therefore, I have changed setCostBasedWideningDecision so that if
we are storing a scalable vector out to a uniform address and the
target supports scatter instructions, then we should use those
instead.
Tests have been added here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-inv-store.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104624
Currently we will allow loops with a fixed width VF of 1 to vectorize
if the -enable-strict-reductions flag is set. However, the loop vectorizer
will not use ordered reductions if `VF.isScalar()` and the resulting
vectorized loop will be out of order.
This patch removes `VF.isVector()` when checking if ordered reductions
should be used. Also, instead of converting the FAdds to reductions if the
VF = 1, operands of the FAdds are changed such that the order is preserved.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104533
Fixes getTypeConversion to return `TypeScalarizeScalableVector` when a scalable vector
type cannot be legalized by widening/splitting. When this is the method of legalization
found, getTypeLegalizationCost will return an Invalid cost.
The getMemoryOpCost, getMaskedMemoryOpCost & getGatherScatterOpCost functions already call
getTypeLegalizationCost and will now also return an Invalid cost for unsupported types.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102515
If the `-enable-strict-reductions` flag is set to true, then currently we will
always choose to vectorize the loop with strict in-order reductions. This is
not necessary where we allow the reordering of FP operations, such as
when loop hints are passed via metadata.
This patch moves useOrderedReductions so that we can also check whether
loop hints allow reordering, in which case we should use the default
behaviour of vectorizing with unordered reductions.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103814
This patch marks the induction increment of the main induction variable
of the vector loop as NUW when not folding the tail.
If the tail is not folded, we know that End - Start >= Step (either
statically or through the minimum iteration checks). We also know that both
Start % Step == 0 and End % Step == 0. We exit the vector loop if %IV +
%Step == %End. Hence we must exit the loop before %IV + %Step unsigned
overflows and we can mark the induction increment as NUW.
This should make SCEV return more precise bounds for the created vector
loops, used by later optimizations, like late unrolling.
At the moment quite a few tests still need to be updated, but before
doing so I'd like to get initial feedback to make sure I am not missing
anything.
Note that this could probably be further improved by using information
from the original IV.
Attempt of modeling of the assumption in Alive2:
https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/H_DL_g
Part of a set of fixes required for PR50412.
Reviewed By: mkazantsev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103255
This patch uses the calculated maximum scalable VFs to build VPlans,
cost them and select a suitable scalable VF.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98722
When loop hints are passed via metadata, the allowReordering function
in LoopVectorizationLegality will allow the order of floating point
operations to be changed:
bool allowReordering() const {
// When enabling loop hints are provided we allow the vectorizer to change
// the order of operations that is given by the scalar loop. This is not
// enabled by default because can be unsafe or inefficient.
The -enable-strict-reductions flag introduced in D98435 will currently only
vectorize reductions in-loop if hints are used, since canVectorizeFPMath()
will return false if reordering is not allowed.
This patch changes canVectorizeFPMath() to query whether it is safe to
vectorize the loop with ordered reductions if no hints are used. For
testing purposes, an additional flag (-hints-allow-reordering) has been
added to disable the reordering behaviour described above.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101836
An additional RUN line has been added to both strict-fadd.ll &
scalable-strict-fadd.ll to ensure the correct behaviour of these
tests where `-enable-strict-reductions` is false.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103015
* Removes unnecessary loop hints.
* Use RUN line with '-scalable-vectorization=preferred' instead of 'on'
for the maximize-bandwidth behaviour. This prepares the test for enabling
scalable vectorization; With a forced instruction-cost of 1, 'on' will
always favour fixed-width VF to be chosen, whereas with 'preferred'
we can check that the maximize-bandwidth option in combination with
scalable-vectorization=preferred actually picks a scalable VF.
* Renamed to scalable-vectorization.ll, because a follow-up patch will
test more than just analysis.
This patch adds a new option to the LoopVectorizer to control how
scalable vectors can be used.
Initially, this suggests three levels to control scalable
vectorization, although other more aggressive options can be added in
the future.
The possible options are:
- Disabled: Disables vectorization with scalable vectors.
- Enabled: Vectorize loops using scalable vectors or fixed-width
vectors, but favors fixed-width vectors when the cost
is a tie.
- Preferred: Like 'Enabled', but favoring scalable vectors when the
cost-model is inconclusive.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm, vkmr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101945
This patch introduces a new class, MaxVFCandidates, that holds the
maximum vectorization factors that have been computed for both scalable
and fixed-width vectors.
This patch is intended to be NFC for fixed-width vectors, although
considering a scalable max VF (which is disabled by default) pessimises
tail-loop elimination, since it can no longer determine if any chosen VF
(less than fixed/scalable MaxVFs) is guaranteed to handle all vector
iterations if the trip-count is known. This issue will be addressed in
a future patch.
Reviewed By: fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98721
In InnerLoopVectorizer::widenPHIInstruction there are cases where we have
to scalarise a pointer induction variable after vectorisation. For scalable
vectors we already deal with the case where the pointer induction variable
is uniform, but we currently crash if not uniform. For fixed width vectors
we calculate every lane of the scalarised pointer induction variable for a
given VF, however this cannot work for scalable vectors. In this case I
have added support for caching the whole vector value for each unrolled
part so that we can always extract an arbitrary element. Additionally, we
still continue to cache the known minimum number of lanes too in order
to improve code quality by avoiding an extractelement operation.
I have adapted an existing test `pointer_iv_mixed` from the file:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/consecutive-ptr-uniforms.ll
and added it here for scalable vectors instead:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-widen-phi.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101294
This patch adds support for Darwin's libsystem math vector functions to
TLI. Darwin's libsystem provides a range of vector functions for libm
functions.
This initial patch only adds the 2 x double and 4 x float versions,
which are available on both X86 and ARM64. On X86, wider vector versions
are supported as well.
Reviewed By: jroelofs
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101856
Adds support for scalable vectorization of loops containing first-order recurrences, e.g:
```
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
b[i] = a[i] + a[i - 1]
```
This patch changes fixFirstOrderRecurrence for scalable vectors to take vscale into
account when inserting into and extracting from the last lane of a vector.
CreateVectorSplice has been added to construct a vector for the recurrence, which
returns a splice intrinsic for scalable types. For fixed-width the behaviour
remains unchanged as CreateVectorSplice will return a shufflevector instead.
The tests included here are the same as test/Transform/LoopVectorize/first-order-recurrence.ll
Reviewed By: david-arm, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101076
This patch fixes a crash encountered when vectorising the following loop:
void foo(float *dst, float *src, long long n) {
for (long long i = 0; i < n; i++)
dst[i] = -src[i];
}
using scalable vectors. I've added a test to
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-basic-vec.ll
as well as cleaned up the other tests in the same file.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98054
David Sherwood