If we know that the scalar epilogue is required to run, modify the CFG to end the middle block with an unconditional branch to scalar preheader. This is instead of a conditional branch to either the preheader or the exit block.
The motivation to do this is to support multiple exit blocks. Specifically, the current structure forces us to identify immediate dominators and *which* exit block to branch from in the middle terminator. For the multiple exit case - where we know require scalar will hold - these questions are ill formed.
This is the last change needed to support multiple exit loops, but since the diffs are already large enough, I'm going to land this, and then enable separately. You can think of this as being NFCI-ish prep work, but the changes are a bit too involved for me to feel comfortable tagging the change that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94892
This patch updates the induction value creation to use VPValues of
recipes to map the created values. This should bring is one step closer
to being able to optimize induction recipes directly in VPlan.
Currently widenIntOrFpInduction also generates vector values for a cast
of the induction, if it exists. Make this explicit by adding the cast
instruction to the values defined by the recipe.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92284
This patch adds constructors to VPIteration as a cleaner way of
initialising the struct and replaces existing constructions of
the form:
{Part, Lane}
with
VPIteration(Part, Lane)
I have also added a default constructor, which is used by VPlan.cpp
when deciding whether to replicate a block or not.
This refactoring will be required in a later patch that adds more
members and functions to VPIteration.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95676
This patch updates IRBuilder::CreateMaskedGather/Scatter to work
with ScalableVectorType and adds isLegalMaskedGather/Scatter functions
to AArch64TargetTransformInfo. In addition I've fixed up
isLegalMaskedLoad/Store to return true for supported scalar types,
since this is what the vectorizer asks for.
In LoopVectorize.cpp I've changed
LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInterleaveGroupCost to return an invalid
cost for scalable vectors, since currently this relies upon using shuffle
vector for reversing vectors. In addition, in
LoopVectorizationCostModel::setCostBasedWideningDecision I have assumed
that the cost of scalarising memory ops is infinitely expensive.
I have added some simple masked load/store and gather/scatter tests,
including cases where we use gathers and scatters for conditional invariant
loads and stores.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95350
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
This is another step (see D95452) towards correcting fast-math-flags
bugs in vector reductions.
There are multiple bugs visible in the test diffs, and this is still
not working as it should. We still use function attributes (rather
than FMF) to drive part of the logic, but we are not checking for
the correct FP function attributes.
Note that FMF may not be propagated optimally on selects (example
in https://llvm.org/PR35607 ). That's why I'm proposing to union the
FMF of a fcmp+select pair and avoid regressions on existing vectorizer
tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95690
D90687 introduced a crash:
llvm::LoopVectorizationCostModel::computeMaxVF(llvm::ElementCount, unsigned int):
Assertion `WideningDecisions.empty() && Uniforms.empty() && Scalars.empty() &&
"No decisions should have been taken at this point"' failed.
when compiling the following C code:
typedef struct {
char a;
} b;
b *c;
int d, e;
int f() {
int g = 0;
for (; d; d++) {
e = 0;
for (; e < c[d].a; e++)
g++;
}
return g;
}
with:
clang -Os -target hexagon -mhvx -fvectorize -mv67 testcase.c -S -o -
This occurred since prior to D90687 computeFeasibleMaxVF would only be
called in computeMaxVF when a scalar epilogue was allowed, but now it's
always called. This causes the assert above since computeFeasibleMaxVF
collects all viable VFs larger than the default MaxVF, and for each VF
calculates the register usage which results in analysis being done the
assert above guards against. This can occur in computeFeasibleMaxVF if
TTI.shouldMaximizeVectorBandwidth and this target hook is implemented in
the hexagon backend to always return true.
Reported by @iajbar.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94869
I am trying to untangle the fast-math-flags propagation logic
in the vectorizers (see a6f022127 for SLP).
The loop vectorizer has a mix of checking FP function attributes,
IR-level FMF, and just wrong assumptions.
I am trying to avoid regressions while fixing this, and I think
the IR-level logic is good enough for that, but it's hard to say
for sure. This would be the 1st step in the clean-up.
The existing test that I changed to include 'fast' actually shows
a miscompile: the function only had the equivalent of nnan, but we
created new instructions that had fast (all FMF set). This is
similar to the example in https://llvm.org/PR35538
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95452
This gives the user control over which expander to use, which in turn
allows the user to decide what to do with the expanded instructions.
Used in D75980.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94295
Now that VPRecipeBase inherits from VPDef, we can always use the new
VPValue for replacement, if the recipe defines one. Given the recipes
that are supported at the moment, all new recipes must have either 0 or
1 defined values.
a6f0221276 enabled intersection of FMF on reduction instructions,
so it is safe to ease the check here.
There is still some room to improve here - it looks like we
have nearly duplicate flags propagation logic inside of the
LoopUtils helper but it is limited targets that do not form
reduction intrinsics (they form the shuffle expansion).
Add an intrinsic type class to represent the
llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic, to make code
working with it a bit nicer by hiding the metadata extraction
from view.
As shown in the test diffs, we could miscompile by
propagating flags that did not exist in the original
code.
The flags required for fmin/fmax reductions will be
fixed in a follow-up patch.
Walking the use list of a Constant (particularly, ConstantData)
is not scalable, since a given constant may be used by many
instructinos in many functions in many modules.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94713
I have removed an unnecessary assert in LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInstructionCost
that prevented a cost being calculated for select instructions when using
scalable vectors. In addition, I have changed AArch64TTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost
to only do special cost calculations for fixed width vectors and fall
back to the base version for scalable vectors.
I have added a simple cost model test for cmps and selects:
test/Analysis/CostModel/sve-cmpsel.ll
and some simple tests that show we vectorize loops with cmp and select:
test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-basic-vec.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95039
This adds cost modelling for the inloop vectorization added in
745bf6cf44. Up until now they have been modelled as the original
underlying instruction, usually an add. This happens to works OK for MVE
with instructions that are reducing into the same type as they are
working on. But MVE's instructions can perform the equivalent of an
extended MLA as a single instruction:
%sa = sext <16 x i8> A to <16 x i32>
%sb = sext <16 x i8> B to <16 x i32>
%m = mul <16 x i32> %sa, %sb
%r = vecreduce.add(%m)
->
R = VMLADAV A, B
There are other instructions for performing add reductions of
v4i32/v8i16/v16i8 into i32 (VADDV), for doing the same with v4i32->i64
(VADDLV) and for performing a v4i32/v8i16 MLA into an i64 (VMLALDAV).
The i64 are particularly interesting as there are no native i64 add/mul
instructions, leading to the i64 add and mul naturally getting very
high costs.
Also worth mentioning, under NEON there is the concept of a sdot/udot
instruction which performs a partial reduction from a v16i8 to a v4i32.
They extend and mul/sum the first four elements from the inputs into the
first element of the output, repeating for each of the four output
lanes. They could possibly be represented in the same way as above in
llvm, so long as a vecreduce.add could perform a partial reduction. The
vectorizer would then produce a combination of in and outer loop
reductions to efficiently use the sdot and udot instructions. Although
this patch does not do that yet, it does suggest that separating the
input reduction type from the produced result type is a useful concept
to model. It also shows that a MLA reduction as a single instruction is
fairly common.
This patch attempt to improve the costmodelling of in-loop reductions
by:
- Adding some pattern matching in the loop vectorizer cost model to
match extended reduction patterns that are optionally extended and/or
MLA patterns. This marks the cost of the reduction instruction correctly
and the sext/zext/mul leading up to it as free, which is otherwise
difficult to tell and may get a very high cost. (In the long run this
can hopefully be replaced by vplan producing a single node and costing
it correctly, but that is not yet something that vplan can do).
- getExtendedAddReductionCost is added to query the cost of these
extended reduction patterns.
- Expanded the ARM costs to account for these expanded sizes, which is a
fairly simple change in itself.
- Some minor alterations to allow inloop reduction larger than the highest
vector width and i64 MVE reductions.
- An extra InLoopReductionImmediateChains map was added to the vectorizer
for it to efficiently detect which instructions are reductions in the
cost model.
- The tests have some updates to show what I believe is optimal
vectorization and where we are now.
Put together this can greatly improve performance for reduction loop
under MVE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93476
This is NFC-intended and removes the "OperationData"
class which had become nothing more than a recurrence
(reduction) type.
I adjusted the matching logic to distinguish
instructions from non-instructions - that's all that
the "IsLeafValue" member was keeping track of.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
More streamlining is possible, but I'm trying to avoid
logic/typo bugs while fixing this. Eventually, we should
not need the `OperationData` class.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
Just like llvm.assume, there are a lot of cases where we can just ignore llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93042
A previous patch has already changed getInstructionCost to return
an InstructionCost type. This patch changes the other various
getXXXCost functions to return an InstructionCost too. This is a
non-functional change - I've added a few asserts that the costs
are valid in places where we're selecting between vector call
and intrinsic costs. However, since we don't yet return invalid
costs from any of the TTI implementations these asserts should
not fire.
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94065
After much refactoring over the last 2 weeks to the reduction
matching code, I think this change is finally ready.
We effectively broke fmax/fmin vector reduction optimization
when we started canonicalizing to intrinsics in instcombine,
so this should restore that functionality for SLP.
There are still FMF problems here as noted in the code comments,
but we should be avoiding miscompiles on those for fmax/fmin by
restricting to full 'fast' ops (negative tests are included).
Fixing FMF propagation is a planned follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94913
This will avoid confusion once we start matching
min/max intrinsics. All of these hacks to accomodate
cmp+sel idioms should disappear once we canonicalize
to min/max intrinsics.
The icmp opcode is now hard-coded in the cost model call.
This will make it easier to eventually remove all opcode
queries for min/max patterns as we transition to intrinsics.
This patch changes these functions:
vectorizeLoadInsert
isExtractExtractCheap
foldExtractedCmps
scalarizeBinopOrCmp
getShuffleExtract
foldBitcastShuf
to use the class InstructionCost when calling TTI.get<something>Cost().
This patch is part of a series of patches to use InstructionCost instead of
unsigned/int for the cost model functions.
See this thread for context:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
ps.:This patch adds the test || !NewCost.isValid(), because we want to
return false when:
!NewCost.isValid && !OldCost.isValid()->the cost to transform it expensive
and
!NewCost.isValid() && OldCost.isValid()
Therefore for simplication we only add test for !NewCost.isValid()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94069
This is NFC-intended and another step towards supporting
intrinsics as reduction candidates.
The remaining bits of the OperationData class do not make
much sense as-is, so I will try to improve that, but I'm
trying to take minimal steps because it's still not clear
how this was intended to work.
This is another NFC-intended patch to allow matching
intrinsics (example: maxnum) as candidates for reductions.
It's possible that the loop/if logic can be reduced now,
but it's still difficult to understand how this all works.
To get into this block we had: !A || B || C
and we checked C in the first 'if' clause
leaving !A || B. But the 2nd 'if' is checking:
A && !B --> !(!A || B)
This is NFC-intended. I'm still trying to figure out
how the loop where this is used works. It does not
seem like we require this data at all, but it's
hard to confirm given the complicated predicates.
In the spirit of commit fc783e91e0 (llvm-svn: 248943) we
shouldn't vectorize stores of non-packed types (i.e. types that
has padding between consecutive variables in a scalar layout,
but being packed in a vector layout).
The problem was detected as a miscompile in a downstream test case.
Reviewed By: anton-afanasyev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94446
This relates to the ongoing effort to support vectorization of multiple exit loops (see D93317).
The previous code assumed that LCSSA phis were always single entry before the vectorizer ran. This was correct, but only because the vectorizer allowed only a single exiting edge. There's nothing in the definition of LCSSA which requires single entry phis.
A common case where this comes up is with a loop with multiple exiting blocks which all reach a common exit block. (e.g. see the test updates)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93725
This patch unifies the way recipes and VPValues are printed after the
transition to VPDef.
VPSlotTracker has been updated to iterate over all recipes and all
their defined values to number those. There is no need to number
values in Value2VPValue.
It also updates a few places that only used slot numbers for
VPInstruction. All recipes now can produce numbered VPValues.
Craig Topper