Try to improve vectorization of the PHI nodes by trying to vectorize
similar instructions at the size of the widest possible vectors, then
aggregating with compatible type PHIs and trying to vectoriza again and
only if this failed, try smaller sizes of the vector factors for
compatible PHI nodes. This restores performance of several benchmarks
after tuning of the fp/int conversion instructions costs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108740
The instruction extractelement/extractvalue are not required to
be scheduled since they only depend on the source vector/aggregate (with
constant indices), smae applies to the parent basic block checks.
Improves compile time and saves scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108703
We see that it might otherwise do:
%10 = getelementptr {}**, <2 x {}***> %9, <2 x i32> <i32 10, i32 4>
%11 = bitcast <2 x {}***> %10 to <2 x i64*>
...
%27 = extractelement <2 x i64*> %11, i32 0
%28 = bitcast i64* %27 to <2 x i64>*
store <2 x i64> %22, <2 x i64>* %28, align 4, !tbaa !2
Which is an out-of-bounds store (the extractelement got offset 10
instead of offset 4 as intended). With the fix, we correctly generate
extractelement for i32 1 and generate correct code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106613
Only the most recent cpus support really 1cy 64-bit multiplies, and the X64 cost table represents a realistic worst case. The 1cy value was also discouraging vectorization when most vXi64 PMULDQ expansions aren't actually slower than scalarization.
Noticed while investigating PR51436.
This patch is for fixing potential shufflevector-related bugs like D93818.
As D93818, this patch change shufflevector's default placeholder to poison.
To reduce risk, it was divided into several patches, and this patch is for InstCombineCompares and InstructionCombining.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110227
This patch allows sinking an instruction which can have multiple uses in a
single user. We were previously over-restrictive by looking for exactly one use,
rather than one user.
Also added an API for retrieving a unique undroppable user.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109700
Reworked reordering algorithm. Originally, the compiler just tried to
detect the most common order in the reordarable nodes (loads, stores,
extractelements,extractvalues) and then fully rebuilding the graph in
the best order. This was not effecient, since it required an extra
memory and time for building/rebuilding tree, double the use of the
scheduling budget, which could lead to missing vectorization due to
exausted scheduling resources.
Patch provide 2-way approach for graph reodering problem. At first, all
reordering is done in-place, it doe not required tree
deleting/rebuilding, it just rotates the scalars/orders/reuses masks in
the graph node.
The first step (top-to bottom) rotates the whole graph, similarly to the previous
implementation. Compiler counts the number of the most used orders of
the graph nodes with the same vectorization factor and then rotates the
subgraph with the given vectorization factor to the most used order, if
it is not empty. Then repeats the same procedure for the subgraphs with
the smaller vectorization factor. We can do this because we still need
to reshuffle smaller subgraph when buildiong operands for the graph
nodes with lasrger vectorization factor, we can rotate just subgraph,
not the whole graph.
The second step (bottom-to-top) scans through the leaves and tries to
detect the users of the leaves which can be reordered. If the leaves can
be reorder in the best fashion, they are reordered and their user too.
It allows to remove double shuffles to the same ordering of the operands in
many cases and just reorder the user operations instead. Plus, it moves
the final shuffles closer to the top of the graph and in many cases
allows to remove extra shuffle because the same procedure is repeated
again and we can again merge some reordering masks and reorder user nodes
instead of the operands.
Also, patch improves cost model for gathering of loads, which improves
x264 benchmark in some cases.
Gives about +2% on AVX512 + LTO (more expected for AVX/AVX2) for {625,525}x264,
+3% for 508.namd, improves most of other benchmarks.
The compile and link time are almost the same, though in some cases it
should be better (we're not doing an extra instruction scheduling
anymore) + we may vectorize more code for the large basic blocks again
because of saving scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105020
Based off the worse case numbers generated by D103695, the AVX2/512 bit reversing/counting costs were higher than necessary (based off instruction counts instead of actual throughput).
Currently, opaque pointers are supported in two forms: The
-force-opaque-pointers mode, where all pointers are opaque and
typed pointers do not exist. And as a simple ptr type that can
coexist with typed pointers.
This patch removes support for the mixed mode. You either get
typed pointers, or you get opaque pointers, but not both. In the
(current) default mode, using ptr is forbidden. In -opaque-pointers
mode, all pointers are opaque.
The motivation here is that the mixed mode introduces additional
issues that don't exist in fully opaque mode. D105155 is an example
of a design problem. Looking at D109259, it would probably need
additional work to support mixed mode (e.g. to generate GEPs for
typed base but opaque result). Mixed mode will also end up
inserting many casts between i8* and ptr, which would require
significant additional work to consistently avoid.
I don't think the mixed mode is particularly valuable, as it
doesn't align with our end goal. The only thing I've found it to
be moderately useful for is adding some opaque pointer tests in
between typed pointer tests, but I think we can live without that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109290
Add tests monitoring issues fix. They should be fixed when
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57059 ("Initial support for the vectorization
of the non-power-of-2 vectors") is landed.
Please refer to
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-September/152440.html
(and that whole thread.)
TLDR: the original patch had no prior RFC, yet it had some changes that
really need a proper RFC discussion. It won't be productive to discuss
such an RFC, once it's actually posted, while said patch is already
committed, because that introduces bias towards already-committed stuff,
and the tree is potentially in broken state meanwhile.
While the end result of discussion may lead back to the current design,
it may also not lead to the current design.
Therefore i take it upon myself
to revert the tree back to last known good state.
This reverts commit 4c4093e6e3.
This reverts commit 0a2b1ba33a.
This reverts commit d9873711cb.
This reverts commit 791006fb8c.
This reverts commit c22b64ef66.
This reverts commit 72ebcd3198.
This reverts commit 5fa6039a5f.
This reverts commit 9efda541bf.
This reverts commit 94d3ff09cf.
SLPVectorizer currently uses AA::isNoAlias() to determine whether
two locations alias. This does not work if one of the instructions
is a call. Instead, we should check getModRefInfo(), which
determines whether an arbitrary instruction modifies or references
a given location.
Among other things, this prevents @llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl()
and other inaccessiblmemonly intrinsics from interfering with SLP
vectorization.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109012
Reworked reordering algorithm. Originally, the compiler just tried to
detect the most common order in the reordarable nodes (loads, stores,
extractelements,extractvalues) and then fully rebuilding the graph in
the best order. This was not effecient, since it required an extra
memory and time for building/rebuilding tree, double the use of the
scheduling budget, which could lead to missing vectorization due to
exausted scheduling resources.
Patch provide 2-way approach for graph reodering problem. At first, all
reordering is done in-place, it doe not required tree
deleting/rebuilding, it just rotates the scalars/orders/reuses masks in
the graph node.
The first step (top-to bottom) rotates the whole graph, similarly to the previous
implementation. Compiler counts the number of the most used orders of
the graph nodes with the same vectorization factor and then rotates the
subgraph with the given vectorization factor to the most used order, if
it is not empty. Then repeats the same procedure for the subgraphs with
the smaller vectorization factor. We can do this because we still need
to reshuffle smaller subgraph when buildiong operands for the graph
nodes with lasrger vectorization factor, we can rotate just subgraph,
not the whole graph.
The second step (bottom-to-top) scans through the leaves and tries to
detect the users of the leaves which can be reordered. If the leaves can
be reorder in the best fashion, they are reordered and their user too.
It allows to remove double shuffles to the same ordering of the operands in
many cases and just reorder the user operations instead. Plus, it moves
the final shuffles closer to the top of the graph and in many cases
allows to remove extra shuffle because the same procedure is repeated
again and we can again merge some reordering masks and reorder user nodes
instead of the operands.
Also, patch improves cost model for gathering of loads, which improves
x264 benchmark in some cases.
Gives about +2% on AVX512 + LTO (more expected for AVX/AVX2) for {625,525}x264,
+3% for 508.namd, improves most of other benchmarks.
The compile and link time are almost the same, though in some cases it
should be better (we're not doing an extra instruction scheduling
anymore) + we may vectorize more code for the large basic blocks again
because of saving scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105020
Reworked reordering algorithm. Originally, the compiler just tried to
detect the most common order in the reordarable nodes (loads, stores,
extractelements,extractvalues) and then fully rebuilding the graph in
the best order. This was not effecient, since it required an extra
memory and time for building/rebuilding tree, double the use of the
scheduling budget, which could lead to missing vectorization due to
exausted scheduling resources.
Patch provide 2-way approach for graph reodering problem. At first, all
reordering is done in-place, it doe not required tree
deleting/rebuilding, it just rotates the scalars/orders/reuses masks in
the graph node.
The first step (top-to bottom) rotates the whole graph, similarly to the previous
implementation. Compiler counts the number of the most used orders of
the graph nodes with the same vectorization factor and then rotates the
subgraph with the given vectorization factor to the most used order, if
it is not empty. Then repeats the same procedure for the subgraphs with
the smaller vectorization factor. We can do this because we still need
to reshuffle smaller subgraph when buildiong operands for the graph
nodes with lasrger vectorization factor, we can rotate just subgraph,
not the whole graph.
The second step (bottom-to-top) scans through the leaves and tries to
detect the users of the leaves which can be reordered. If the leaves can
be reorder in the best fashion, they are reordered and their user too.
It allows to remove double shuffles to the same ordering of the operands in
many cases and just reorder the user operations instead. Plus, it moves
the final shuffles closer to the top of the graph and in many cases
allows to remove extra shuffle because the same procedure is repeated
again and we can again merge some reordering masks and reorder user nodes
instead of the operands.
Also, patch improves cost model for gathering of loads, which improves
x264 benchmark in some cases.
Gives about +2% on AVX512 + LTO (more expected for AVX/AVX2) for {625,525}x264,
+3% for 508.namd, improves most of other benchmarks.
The compile and link time are almost the same, though in some cases it
should be better (we're not doing an extra instruction scheduling
anymore) + we may vectorize more code for the large basic blocks again
because of saving scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105020
The instruction extractelement/extractvalue are not required to
be scheduled since they only depend on the source vector/aggregate (with
constant indices), smae applies to the parent basic block checks.
Improves compile time and saves scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108703
If the vectorized insertelements instructions form indentity subvector
(the subvector at the beginning of the long vector), it is just enough
to extend the vector itself, no need to generate inserting subvector
shuffle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107494
If the vectorized insertelements instructions form indentity subvector
(the subvector at the beginning of the long vector), it is just enough
to extend the vector itself, no need to generate inserting subvector
shuffle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107344
Replace insertelement instructions for splats with just single
insertelement + broadcast shuffle. Also, try to merge these instructions
if they come from the same/shuffled gather node.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107104
For the nodes with reused scalars the user may be not only of the size
of the final shuffle but also of the size of the scalars themselves,
need to check for this. It is safe to just modify the check here, since
the order of the scalars themselves is preserved, only indeces of the
reused scalars are changed. So, the users with the same size as the
number of scalars in the node, will not be affected, they still will get
the operands in the required order.
Reported by @mstorsjo in D105020.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107080
If the instruction was previously deleted, it should not be treated as
an external user. This fixes cost estimation and removes dead
extractelement instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107106
Need to check that the minimum acceptable vector factor is at least 2,
not 0, to avoid compiler crash during gathered loads analysis.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107058
Reworked reordering algorithm. Originally, the compiler just tried to
detect the most common order in the reordarable nodes (loads, stores,
extractelements,extractvalues) and then fully rebuilding the graph in
the best order. This was not effecient, since it required an extra
memory and time for building/rebuilding tree, double the use of the
scheduling budget, which could lead to missing vectorization due to
exausted scheduling resources.
Patch provide 2-way approach for graph reodering problem. At first, all
reordering is done in-place, it doe not required tree
deleting/rebuilding, it just rotates the scalars/orders/reuses masks in
the graph node.
The first step (top-to bottom) rotates the whole graph, similarly to the previous
implementation. Compiler counts the number of the most used orders of
the graph nodes with the same vectorization factor and then rotates the
subgraph with the given vectorization factor to the most used order, if
it is not empty. Then repeats the same procedure for the subgraphs with
the smaller vectorization factor. We can do this because we still need
to reshuffle smaller subgraph when buildiong operands for the graph
nodes with lasrger vectorization factor, we can rotate just subgraph,
not the whole graph.
The second step (bottom-to-top) scans through the leaves and tries to
detect the users of the leaves which can be reordered. If the leaves can
be reorder in the best fashion, they are reordered and their user too.
It allows to remove double shuffles to the same ordering of the operands in
many cases and just reorder the user operations instead. Plus, it moves
the final shuffles closer to the top of the graph and in many cases
allows to remove extra shuffle because the same procedure is repeated
again and we can again merge some reordering masks and reorder user nodes
instead of the operands.
Also, patch improves cost model for gathering of loads, which improves
x264 benchmark in some cases.
Gives about +2% on AVX512 + LTO (more expected for AVX/AVX2) for {625,525}x264,
+3% for 508.namd, improves most of other benchmarks.
The compile and link time are almost the same, though in some cases it
should be better (we're not doing an extra instruction scheduling
anymore) + we may vectorize more code for the large basic blocks again
because of saving scheduling budget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105020
Need to fix several cost-related problems. The final type may be defined
incorrectly because of to early definition (we may end up with the wider
type), the CommonCost should not be redefined in ExtractElements
cost related calculations and the shuffle of the final insertelements
vectors should be calculated as a cost of single vector permutations
+ costs of two vector permutations for other n-1 incoming vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106578
Need to fix several cost-related problems. The final type may be defined
incorrectly because of to early definition (we may end up with the wider
type), the CommonCost should not be redefined in ExtractElements
cost related calculations and the shuffle of the final insertelements
vectors should be calculated as a cost of single vector permutations
+ costs of two vector permutations for other n-1 incoming vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106578
Alexey Bataev