Now that `Metadata` is typeless, reflect that in the assembly. These
are the matching assembly changes for the metadata/value split in
r223802.
- Only use the `metadata` type when referencing metadata from a call
intrinsic -- i.e., only when it's used as a `Value`.
- Stop pretending that `ValueAsMetadata` is wrapped in an `MDNode`
when referencing it from call intrinsics.
So, assembly like this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 %v}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{i32 7}, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !1, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{metadata !3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = metadata !{metadata !2}
!1 = metadata !{i32* @global}
!2 = metadata !{metadata !3}
!3 = metadata !{}
turns into this:
define @foo(i32 %v) {
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 %v, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32 7, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata i32* @global, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !3, metadata !0)
call void @llvm.foo(metadata !{!3}, metadata !0)
ret void, !bar !2
}
!0 = !{!2}
!1 = !{i32* @global}
!2 = !{!3}
!3 = !{}
I wrote an upgrade script that handled almost all of the tests in llvm
and many of the tests in cfe (even handling many `CHECK` lines). I've
attached it (or will attach it in a moment if you're speedy) to PR21532
to help everyone update their out-of-tree testcases.
This is part of PR21532.
llvm-svn: 224257
This reverts commit r206707, reapplying r206704. The preceding commit
to CalcSpillWeights should have sorted out the failing buildbots.
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206766
This reverts commit r206677, reapplying my BlockFrequencyInfo rewrite.
I've done a careful audit, added some asserts, and fixed a couple of
bugs (unfortunately, they were in unlikely code paths). There's a small
chance that this will appease the failing bots [1][2]. (If so, great!)
If not, I have a follow-up commit ready that will temporarily add
-debug-only=block-freq to the two failing tests, allowing me to compare
the code path between what the failing bots and what my machines (and
the rest of the bots) are doing. Once I've triggered those builds, I'll
revert both commits so the bots go green again.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
<rdar://problem/14292693>
llvm-svn: 206704
This reverts commit r206666, as planned.
Still stumped on why the bots are failing. Sanitizer bots haven't
turned anything up. If anyone can help me debug either of the failures
(referenced in r206666) I'll owe them a beer. (In the meantime, I'll be
auditing my patch for undefined behaviour.)
llvm-svn: 206677
This reverts commit r206628, reapplying r206622 (and r206626).
Two tests are failing only on buildbots [1][2]: i.e., I can't reproduce
on Darwin, and Chandler can't reproduce on Linux. Asan and valgrind
don't tell us anything, but we're hoping the msan bot will catch it.
So, I'm applying this again to get more feedback from the bots. I'll
leave it in long enough to trigger builds in at least the sanitizer
buildbots (it was failing for reasons unrelated to my commit last time
it was in), and hopefully a few others.... and then I expect to revert a
third time.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
[2]: http://llvm-amd64.freebsd.your.org/b/builders/clang-i386-freebsd/builds/18445
llvm-svn: 206666
This reverts commit r206622 and the MSVC fixup in r206626.
Apparently the remotely failing tests are still failing, despite my
attempt to fix the nondeterminism in r206621.
llvm-svn: 206628
This reverts commit r206556, effectively reapplying commit r206548 and
its fixups in r206549 and r206550.
In an intervening commit I've added target triples to the tests that
were failing remotely [1] (but passing locally). I'm hoping the mystery
is solved? I'll revert this again if the tests are still failing
remotely.
[1]: http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/1816
llvm-svn: 206622
Rewrite the shared implementation of BlockFrequencyInfo and
MachineBlockFrequencyInfo entirely.
The old implementation had a fundamental flaw: precision losses from
nested loops (or very wide branches) compounded past loop exits (and
convergence points).
The @nested_loops testcase at the end of
test/Analysis/BlockFrequencyAnalysis/basic.ll is motivating. This
function has three nested loops, with branch weights in the loop headers
of 1:4000 (exit:continue). The old analysis gives non-sensical results:
Printing analysis 'Block Frequency Analysis' for function 'nested_loops':
---- Block Freqs ----
entry = 1.0
for.cond1.preheader = 1.00103
for.cond4.preheader = 5.5222
for.body6 = 18095.19995
for.inc8 = 4.52264
for.inc11 = 0.00109
for.end13 = 0.0
The new analysis gives correct results:
Printing analysis 'Block Frequency Analysis' for function 'nested_loops':
block-frequency-info: nested_loops
- entry: float = 1.0, int = 8
- for.cond1.preheader: float = 4001.0, int = 32007
- for.cond4.preheader: float = 16008001.0, int = 128064007
- for.body6: float = 64048012001.0, int = 512384096007
- for.inc8: float = 16008001.0, int = 128064007
- for.inc11: float = 4001.0, int = 32007
- for.end13: float = 1.0, int = 8
Most importantly, the frequency leaving each loop matches the frequency
entering it.
The new algorithm leverages BlockMass and PositiveFloat to maintain
precision, separates "probability mass distribution" from "loop
scaling", and uses dithering to eliminate probability mass loss. I have
unit tests for these types out of tree, but it was decided in the review
to make the classes private to BlockFrequencyInfoImpl, and try to shrink
them (or remove them entirely) in follow-up commits.
The new algorithm should generally have a complexity advantage over the
old. The previous algorithm was quadratic in the worst case. The new
algorithm is still worst-case quadratic in the presence of irreducible
control flow, but it's linear without it.
The key difference between the old algorithm and the new is that control
flow within a loop is evaluated separately from control flow outside,
limiting propagation of precision problems and allowing loop scale to be
calculated independently of mass distribution. Loops are visited
bottom-up, their loop scales are calculated, and they are replaced by
pseudo-nodes. Mass is then distributed through the function, which is
now a DAG. Finally, loops are revisited top-down to multiply through
the loop scales and the masses distributed to pseudo nodes.
There are some remaining flaws.
- Irreducible control flow isn't modelled correctly. LoopInfo and
MachineLoopInfo ignore irreducible edges, so this algorithm will
fail to scale accordingly. There's a note in the class
documentation about how to get closer. See also the comments in
test/Analysis/BlockFrequencyInfo/irreducible.ll.
- Loop scale is limited to 4096 per loop (2^12) to avoid exhausting
the 64-bit integer precision used downstream.
- The "bias" calculation proposed on llvmdev is *not* incorporated
here. This will be added in a follow-up commit, once comments from
this review have been handled.
llvm-svn: 206548
This is easier to read than the internal fixed-point representation.
If anybody knows the correct algorithm for converting fixed-point
numbers to base 10, feel free to fix it.
llvm-svn: 184881
This is a band-aid to fix the most severe regressions we're seeing from basing
spill decisions on block frequencies, until we have a better solution.
llvm-svn: 184835
and switches, with arbitrary numbers of successors. Still optimized for
the common case of 2 successors for a conditional branch.
Add a test case for switch metadata showing up in the BlockFrequencyInfo pass.
llvm-svn: 142493
encoding of probabilities. In the absense of metadata, it continues to
fall back on static heuristics.
This allows __builtin_expect, after lowering through llvm.expect
a branch instruction's metadata, to actually enter the branch
probability model. This is one component of resolving PR2577.
llvm-svn: 142492
layer already had support for printing the results of this analysis, but
the wiring was missing.
Now that printing the analysis works, actually bring some of this
analysis, and the BranchProbabilityInfo analysis that it wraps, under
test! I'm planning on fixing some bugs and doing other work here, so
having a nice place to add regression tests and a way to observe the
results is really useful.
llvm-svn: 142491
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith