Use GCNHazardRecognizer in postra sched.
Updated tests for the new schedules.
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109536
Change-Id: Ia86ba2ae168f12fb34b4d8efdab491f84d936cde
If no scratch or flat instructions are used, we do not need to
initialize the flat scratch hardware register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105920
This allows to convert the add instruction to s_addk_i32 and
v_add_nc_u32 instead of needing v_add_co_u32 when converting to a VALU
instruction.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103322
gfx9 does not work with negative offsets, gfx10 works only with
aligned negative offsets, but not with unaligned negative offsets.
This is slightly more conservative than needed, gfx9 does support
negative offsets when a VGPR address is used and gfx10 supports
negative, unaligned offsets when an SGPR address is used, but we
do not make use of that with this patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101292
The temporary register is only used to compute the frame pointer.
The frame pointer is overwritten and not used in between, so we
can reuse the frame pointer for the computation, saving one register.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95865
Support for XNACK and SRAMECC is not static on some GPUs. We must be able
to differentiate between different scenarios for these dynamic subtarget
features.
The possible settings are:
- Unsupported: The GPU has no support for XNACK/SRAMECC.
- Any: Preference is unspecified. Use conservative settings that can run anywhere.
- Off: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC Off
- On: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC On
GCNSubtarget will track the four options based on the following criteria. If
the subtarget does not support XNACK/SRAMECC we say the setting is
"Unsupported". If no subtarget features for XNACK/SRAMECC are requested we
must support "Any" mode. If the subtarget features XNACK/SRAMECC exist in the
feature string when initializing the subtarget, the settings are "On/Off".
The defaults are updated to be conservatively correct, meaning if no setting
for XNACK or SRAMECC is explicitly requested, defaults will be used which
generate code that can be run anywhere. This corresponds to the "Any" setting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85882
Treat a non-atomic volatile load and store as a relaxed atomic at
system scope for the address spaces accessed. This will ensure all
relevant caches will be bypassed.
A volatile atomic is not changed and still only bypasses caches upto
the level specified by the SyncScope operand.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94214
The support is disabled by default. So far there is instruction
selection, spilling, and frame elimination. It also changes SP
from unswizzled to swizzled as used by flat scratch instructions,
so it cannot be mixed with MUBUF stack access.
At the very least missing:
- GlobalISel;
- Some optimizations in frame elimination in between vector
and scalar ALU;
- It shall finally allow to always materialize frame index
as an SGPR, but that is not implemented and frame elimination
cannot handle it yet;
- Unaligned and/or multidword flat scratch shall work, but it
is legalized now for MUBUF;
- Operand folding cannot optimize FI like with MUBUF yet;
- It will need scaling the value of the SP/FP in the DWARF
expression to recover the unswizzled scratch address;
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89170
This reverts commit ca907bfb57.
According to michel.daenzer,
> This completely broke the Mesa radeonsi driver on Navi 14. Xorg +
> xterm come up with major corruption & psychedelic colours.
When memory operations are outstanding on function calls, either the
caller or the callee can insert a waitcnt to ensure that all reads are
finished.
Calls need some time to be executed, so if the callee inserts the
waitcnt, filling the instruction buffer and waiting for memory will be
interleaved, hiding some latency. This comes at the cost of having a
waitcnt inside functions that may not be needed as no memory operations
are outstanding.
For function calls, this is already implemented. The same principal
applies to returns: If the caller inserts a waitcnt after the call, the
callee does not have to wait and the return and memory operation can be
run in parallel.
This commit implements waiting in the caller after returning from a
function call.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87674
eliminateFrameIndex won't fix up the offset register when the direct
frame index reference is moved to a separate move instruction. Switch
the offset to a base 0 (which it probably should be to begin with).
Joe Nash