This moves v32i16/v64i8 to a model consistent with how we
treat integer types with avx1.
This does change the ABI for types vXi16/vXi8 vectors larger than
512 bits to pass in multiple zmms instead of multiple ymms. We'd
already hacked some code to make v64i8/v32i16 pass in zmm.
Cost model is still a bit of a mess. In some place I tried to
match existing behavior. But really we need to account for
splitting and concating costs. Cost model for shuffles is
especially pessimistic.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76212
This patch attempts to more accurately model the reduction of
power of 2 vectors of types we natively support. This takes into
account the narrowing of vectors that occur as we go from 512
bits to 256 bits, to 128 bits. It also takes into account the use
of wider elements in the shuffles for the first 2 steps of a
reduction from 128 bits. And uses a v8i16 shift for the final step
of vXi8 reduction.
The default implementation uses the legalized type for the arithmetic
for all levels. And uses the single source permute cost of the
legalized type for all levels. This penalizes things like
lack of v16i8 pshufb on pre-sse3 targets and the splitting and
joining that needs to be done for integer types on AVX1. We never
need v16i8 shuffle for a reduction and we only need split AVX1 ops
when type the type wide and needs to be split. I think we're still
over costing splits and joins for AVX1, but we're closer now.
I've also removed all pairwise special casing because I don't
think we ever want to generate that on X86. I've also adjusted
the add handling to more accurately account for any type splitting
that occurs before we reach a legal type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76478
Previously we multiplied the cost for the table entries by the number of splits needed. But that implies that each split goes through a reduction to scalar independently. I think what really happens is that the we AND/OR the split pieces until we're down to a single value with a legal type and then do special reduction sequence on that.
So to model that this patch takes the number of splits minus one multiplied by the cost of a AND/OR at the legal element count and adds that on top of the table lookup.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D76400
This better represents the kshift+binop we'd get for each stage
before the final extract. Its likely we'll do even better by
doing a kmov and a cmp with a GPR, but this is a good start.
The default handling was costing a worst case single source
permute shuffle of the vector before the binop. This worst
case assumes the shuffle might have to be emulated with
extracts and inserts. But since we know we're doing a reduction
we can assume we'll get kshift lowering.
There's still some room for improvement here, but this is
much better than it was.
The assert that caused this to be reverted should be fixed now.
Original commit message:
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
llvm-svn: 368183
This patch changes our defualt legalization behavior for 16, 32, and
64 bit vectors with i8/i16/i32/i64 scalar types from promotion to
widening. For example, v8i8 will now be widened to v16i8 instead of
promoted to v8i16. This keeps the elements widths the same and pads
with undef elements. We believe this is a better legalization strategy.
But it carries some issues due to the fragmented vector ISA. For
example, i8 shifts and multiplies get widened and then later have
to be promoted/split into vXi16 vectors.
This has the potential to cause regressions so we wanted to get
it in early in the 10.0 cycle so we have plenty of time to
address them.
Next steps will be to merge tests that explicitly test the command
line option. And then we can remove the option and its associated
code.
llvm-svn: 367901
This patch uses the mechanism from D62995 to strengthen the
definitions of the reduction intrinsics by letting the scalar
result/accumulator type be overloaded from the vector element type.
For example:
; The LLVM LangRef specifies that the scalar result must equal the
; vector element type, but this is not checked/enforced by LLVM.
declare i32 @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.or.i32.v4i32(<4 x i32> %a)
This patch changes that into:
declare i32 @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.or.v4i32(<4 x i32> %a)
Which has the type-constraint more explicit and causes LLVM to check
the result type with the vector element type.
Reviewers: RKSimon, arsenm, rnk, greened, aemerson
Reviewed By: arsenm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62996
llvm-svn: 363240
On pre-AVX512 targets we can use MOVMSK to extract reduced boolean results. This is properly optimized, annoyingly AVX512 isn't and produces code that is almost as bad as the (unchanged) costs suggest......
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60403
llvm-svn: 358574
We were overcounting the number of arithmetic operations needed at each level before we reach a legal type. We were using the full vector type for that level, but we are going to split the input vector at that level in half. So the effective arithmetic operation cost at that level is half the width.
So for example on 8i32 on an sse target. Were were calculating the cost of an 8i32 op which is likely 2 for basic integer. Then after the loop we count 2 more v4i32 ops. For a total arith cost of 4. But if you look at the assembly there would only be 3 arithmetic ops.
There are still more bugs in this code that I'm going to work on next. The non pairwise code shouldn't count extract subvectors in the loop. There are no extracts, the types are split in registers. For pairwise we need to use 2 two src permute shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55397
llvm-svn: 348621
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Rebased and reapplied after being reverted in rL347541 due to PR39774 - which was fixed by D54955/rL347759 and D55017/rL347997
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 348076
This reverts commit r346970.
It was causing PR39774, a crash in slp-vectorizer on a rather simple loop
with just a bunch of 'and's in the body.
llvm-svn: 347541
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 346970
Correct costings of SK_ExtractSubvector requires the SubTy argument to indicate the type/size of the extracted subvector.
Unlike the rest of the shuffle kinds this means that the main Ty argument represents the source vector type not the destination!
I've done my best to fix a number of vectorizer uses:
SLP - the reduction epilogue costs should be using a SK_PermuteSingleSrc shuffle as these all occur at the hardware vector width - we're not extracting (illegal) subvector types. This is causing the cost model diffs as SK_ExtractSubvector costs are poorly handled and tend to just return 1 at the moment.
LV - I'm not clear on what the SK_ExtractSubvector should represents for recurrences - I've used a <1 x ?> subvector extraction as that seems to match the VF delta.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53573
llvm-svn: 345617
Simon Pilgrim