Commit Graph

29 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Alexey Bataev 75e1cf4a6a [COST]Improve cost model for shuffles in SLP.
Introduced masks where they are not added and improved target dependent
cost models to avoid returning of the incorrect cost results after
adding masks.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100486
2022-04-28 10:04:41 -07:00
Alexey Bataev 9861ca0c23 Revert "[COST]Improve cost model for shuffles in SLP."
This reverts commit 29a470e380 to fix
a crash reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/D100486#3479989.
2022-04-28 08:11:56 -07:00
Alexey Bataev 29a470e380 [COST]Improve cost model for shuffles in SLP.
Introduced masks where they are not added and improved target dependent
cost models to avoid returning of the incorrect cost results after
adding masks.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100486
2022-04-27 10:56:26 -07:00
Simon Pilgrim 4455c5cdea [CostModel][X86] Update RUN -passes=* to double quotes to appease update scripts on windows 2022-03-18 11:44:18 +00:00
Arthur Eubanks 15ba588d6d [test] Migrate '-analyze -cost-model' to '-passes=print<cost-model>' 2022-02-09 15:42:16 -08:00
David Green 38c9a4068d [TTI] Remove IsPairwiseForm from getArithmeticReductionCost
This patch removes the IsPairwiseForm flag from the Reduction Cost TTI
hooks, along with some accompanying code for pattern matching reductions
from trees starting at extract elements. IsPairWise is now assumed to be
false, which was the predominant way that the value was used from both
the Loop and SLP vectorizers. Since the adjustments such as D93860, the
SLP vectorizer has not relied upon this distinction between paiwise and
non-pairwise reductions.

This also removes some code that was detecting reductions trees starting
from extract elements inside the costmodel. This case was
double-counting costs though, adding the individual costs on the
individual instruction _and_ the total cost of the reduction. Removing
it changes the costs in llvm/test/Analysis/CostModel/X86/reduction.ll to
not double count. The cost of reduction intrinsics is still tested
through the various tests in
llvm/test/Analysis/CostModel/X86/reduce-xyz.ll.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105484
2021-07-09 11:51:16 +01:00
Craig Topper f4c67dfa92 [X86] More accurately model the cost of horizontal reductions.
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
2020-03-22 14:20:15 -07:00
Simon Pilgrim a091f70610 [CostModel][X86] Improve add vXi64 + fadd vXf64 reduction tests for SLM
As noted on D59710 we weren't handling the high costs of these operations on SLM.
2019-11-06 17:55:38 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 1b986b41ac [CostModel][X86] Add add/fadd reduction tests for SLM 2019-11-06 17:04:22 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 1b59a16c0b [CostModel][X86] Improve sum reduction costs.
I can't see any notable differences in costs between SSE2 and SSE42 arches for FADD/ADD reduction, so I've lowered the target to just SSE2.

I've also added vXi8 sum reduction costs in line with the PSADBW codegen and discussions on PR42674.

llvm-svn: 374655
2019-10-12 13:21:50 +00:00
Craig Topper c6bfb05762 [CostModel][X86] Don't count 2 shuffles on the last level of a pairwise arithmetic or min/max reduction
This is split from D55452 with the correct patch this time.

Pairwise reductions require two shuffles on every level but the last. On the last level the two shuffles are <1, u, u, u...> and <0, u, u, u...>, but <0, u, u, u...> will be dropped by InstCombine/DAGCombine as being an identity shuffle.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55615

llvm-svn: 349072
2018-12-13 19:08:10 +00:00
Craig Topper d1498ed8df [CostModel][X86] Fix overcounting arithmetic cost in illegal types in getArithmeticReductionCost/getMinMaxReductionCost
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
2018-12-07 18:20:56 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 102854f4d4 [TTI] Reduction costs only need to include a single extract element cost (REAPPLIED)
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
2018-12-01 14:18:31 +00:00
Fedor Sergeev 8cd9d1b5ce Revert "[TTI] Reduction costs only need to include a single extract element cost"
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
2018-11-26 10:17:27 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 924f193419 [TTI] Reduction costs only need to include a single extract element cost
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
2018-11-15 17:42:53 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim fc8f1d7da7 [CostModel][X86] SK_ExtractSubvector is free if the subvector is at the start of the source vector
llvm-svn: 346538
2018-11-09 19:04:27 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 44a9a71d2a [TTI] Fix uses of SK_ExtractSubvector shuffle costs (PR39368)
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
2018-10-30 18:10:02 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 2a9cde026c [X86][AVX] Reduce v4f64/v4i64 shuffle costs (PR37882)
These were being over cautious for costs for one/two op general shuffles - VSHUFPD doesn't have to replicate the same shuffle in both lanes like VSHUFPS does. 

llvm-svn: 335216
2018-06-21 11:37:13 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 0783921987 [CostModel] Treat Identity shuffle masks as zero cost
As discussed on D47985, identity shuffle masks should probably be free.

I've limited this to the case where the input and output types all match - but we could probably accept all cases.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47986

llvm-svn: 334506
2018-06-12 14:47:13 +00:00
Simon Pilgrim 8a8ff4f6d4 [CostModel][X86] Regenerate vector reduction cost tests with update_analyze_test_checks.py
NOTE: We're only really interested in the extractelement cost (which represents the entire reduction).
llvm-svn: 329504
2018-04-07 14:20:10 +00:00
Sanjay Patel e6143904b9 revert r325515: [TTI CostModel] change default cost of FP ops to 1 (PR36280)
There are too many perf regressions resulting from this, so we need to 
investigate (and add tests for) targets like ARM and AArch64 before 
trying to reinstate.

llvm-svn: 325658
2018-02-21 01:42:52 +00:00
Sanjay Patel 3e8a76abfd [TTI CostModel] change default cost of FP ops to 1 (PR36280)
This change was mentioned at least as far back as:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26837#c26
...and I found a real program that is harmed by this: 
Himeno running on AMD Jaguar gets 6% slower with SLP vectorization:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36280
...but the change here appears to solve that bug only accidentally.

The div/rem costs for x86 look very wrong in some cases, but that's already true, 
so we can fix those in follow-up patches. There's also evidence that more cost model
changes are needed to solve SLP problems as shown in D42981, but that's an independent 
problem (though the solution may be adjusted after this change is made).

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43079

llvm-svn: 325515
2018-02-19 16:11:44 +00:00
Alexey Bataev 62af7252f1 [SLP] Fixed cost model for horizontal reduction.
Currently when cost of scalar operations is evaluated the vector type is
used for scalar operations. Patch fixes this issue and fixes evaluation
of the vector operations cost.
Several test showed that vector cost model is too optimistic. It
allowed vectorization of 8 or less add/fadd operations, though scalar
code is faster. Actually, only for 16 or more operations vector code
provides better performance.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26277

llvm-svn: 288398
2016-12-01 18:42:42 +00:00
Alexey Bataev fc617690ab [SLP] Additional tests with the cost of vector operations.
llvm-svn: 288377
2016-12-01 17:26:54 +00:00
Alexey Bataev e59a8351d0 Revert "[SLP] Additional tests with the cost of vector operations."
This reverts commit a61718435fc4118c82f8aa6133fd81f803789c1e.

llvm-svn: 288371
2016-12-01 16:45:04 +00:00
Alexey Bataev 2ff768475d [SLP] Additional tests with the cost of vector operations.
llvm-svn: 288369
2016-12-01 16:11:48 +00:00
Cong Hou 94620278a4 Don't punish vectorized arithmetic instruction whose type will be split to multiple registers
Currently in LLVM's cost model, a vectorized arithmetic instruction will have
high cost if its type is split into multiple registers. However, this
punishment is too heavy and unnecessary. The overhead of the split should not
be on arithmetic instructions but instructions that implement the split. Note
that during vectorization we have calculated the register pressure, and we
only choose proper interleaving factor (and also vectorization factor) so
that we don't use more registers than the maximum number.

Here is a very simple example: if a vadd has the cost 1, and if we double VF
so that we need two registers to perform it, then its cost will become 4 with
the current implementation, which will prevent us to use larger VF.


Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15159

llvm-svn: 254671
2015-12-04 00:36:58 +00:00
Yi Jiang 5c343de8d3 X86 horizontal vector reduction cost model
llvm-svn: 191021
2013-09-19 17:48:48 +00:00
Arnold Schwaighofer cae8735a54 Costmodel: Add support for horizontal vector reductions
Upcoming SLP vectorization improvements will want to be able to estimate costs
of horizontal reductions. Add infrastructure to support this.

We model reductions as a series of (shufflevector,add) tuples ultimately
followed by an extractelement. For example, for an add-reduction of <4 x float>
we could generate the following sequence:

 (v0, v1, v2, v3)
   \   \  /  /
     \  \  /
       +  +

 (v0+v2, v1+v3, undef, undef)
    \      /
 ((v0+v2) + (v1+v3), undef, undef)

 %rdx.shuf = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
                           <4 x i32> <i32 2, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
 %bin.rdx = fadd <4 x float> %rdx, %rdx.shuf
 %rdx.shuf7 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx, <4 x float> undef,
                          <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
 %bin.rdx8 = fadd <4 x float> %bin.rdx, %rdx.shuf7
 %r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx8, i32 0

This commit adds a cost model interface "getReductionCost(Opcode, Ty, Pairwise)"
that will allow clients to ask for the cost of such a reduction (as backends
might generate more efficient code than the cost of the individual instructions
summed up). This interface is excercised by the CostModel analysis pass which
looks for reduction patterns like the one above - starting at extractelements -
and if it sees a matching sequence will call the cost model interface.

We will also support a second form of pairwise reduction that is well supported
on common architectures (haddps, vpadd, faddp).

 (v0, v1, v2, v3)
  \   /    \  /
 (v0+v1, v2+v3, undef, undef)
    \     /
 ((v0+v1)+(v2+v3), undef, undef, undef)

  %rdx.shuf.0.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 2 , i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %rdx.shuf.0.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %bin.rdx.0 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.0.0, %rdx.shuf.0.1
  %rdx.shuf.1.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %rdx.shuf.1.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %bin.rdx.1 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.1.0, %rdx.shuf.1.1
  %r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx.1, i32 0

llvm-svn: 190876
2013-09-17 18:06:50 +00:00