The original patch (rG86dfbc676ebe) exposed an existing bug:
we could wrongly cast a constant expression to BinaryOperator
because the pattern matching allows that. This adds a check
for that case, and there's a reduced test case to verify no
crashing.
Original commit message:
This builds on the or-reduction bailout that was added with D67841.
We still do not have IR-level load combining, although that could
be a target-specific enhancement for -vector-combiner.
The heuristic is narrowly defined to catch the motivating case from
PR39538:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39538
...while preserving existing functionality.
That is, there's an unmodified test of pure load/zext/store that is
not seen in this patch at llvm/test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/cast.ll.
That's the reason for the logic difference to require the 'or'
instructions. The chances that vectorization would actually help a
memory-bound sequence like that seem small, but it looks nicer with:
vpmovzxwd (%rsi), %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rdi)
rather than:
movzwl (%rsi), %eax
movl %eax, (%rdi)
...
In the motivating test, we avoid creating a vector mess that is
unrecoverable in the backend, and SDAG forms the expected bswap
instructions after load combining:
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm0
movzbl 1(%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm1
movzbl 2(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $4, 4(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $8, 8(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $12, 12(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
movzbl 3(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $1, 5(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $2, 9(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 13(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpslld $24, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpslld $16, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpinsrb $1, 6(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm1
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 10(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 14(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $1, 7(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 11(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpinsrb $3, 15(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpslld $8, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpmovzxbd %xmm2, %xmm2 # xmm2 = xmm2[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[3],zero,zero,zero
vpor %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rsi)
movl (%rdi), %eax
movl 4(%rdi), %ecx
movl 8(%rdi), %edx
movbel %eax, (%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 4(%rsi)
movl 12(%rdi), %ecx
movbel %edx, 8(%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 12(%rsi)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78997
This builds on the or-reduction bailout that was added with D67841.
We still do not have IR-level load combining, although that could
be a target-specific enhancement for -vector-combiner.
The heuristic is narrowly defined to catch the motivating case from
PR39538:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39538
...while preserving existing functionality.
That is, there's an unmodified test of pure load/zext/store that is
not seen in this patch at llvm/test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/cast.ll.
That's the reason for the logic difference to require the 'or'
instructions. The chances that vectorization would actually help a
memory-bound sequence like that seem small, but it looks nicer with:
vpmovzxwd (%rsi), %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rdi)
rather than:
movzwl (%rsi), %eax
movl %eax, (%rdi)
...
In the motivating test, we avoid creating a vector mess that is
unrecoverable in the backend, and SDAG forms the expected bswap
instructions after load combining:
movzbl (%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm0
movzbl 1(%rdi), %eax
vmovd %eax, %xmm1
movzbl 2(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $4, 4(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $8, 8(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vpinsrb $12, 12(%rdi), %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
movzbl 3(%rdi), %eax
vpinsrb $1, 5(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $2, 9(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 13(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpslld $24, %xmm0, %xmm0
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpslld $16, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm0
vpinsrb $1, 6(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm1
vmovd %eax, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 10(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $3, 14(%rdi), %xmm1, %xmm1
vpinsrb $1, 7(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpinsrb $2, 11(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %xmm1 # xmm1 = xmm1[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm1[3],zero,zero,zero
vpinsrb $3, 15(%rdi), %xmm2, %xmm2
vpslld $8, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpmovzxbd %xmm2, %xmm2 # xmm2 = xmm2[0],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[1],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[2],zero,zero,zero,xmm2[3],zero,zero,zero
vpor %xmm2, %xmm1, %xmm1
vpor %xmm1, %xmm0, %xmm0
vmovdqu %xmm0, (%rsi)
movl (%rdi), %eax
movl 4(%rdi), %ecx
movl 8(%rdi), %edx
movbel %eax, (%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 4(%rsi)
movl 12(%rdi), %ecx
movbel %edx, 8(%rsi)
movbel %ecx, 12(%rsi)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78997
The 1st attempt at this modified the cost model in a bad way to avoid the vectorization,
but that caused problems for other users (the loop vectorizer) of the cost model.
I don't see an ideal solution to these 2 related, potentially large, perf regressions:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42708https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43146
We decided that load combining was unsuitable for IR because it could obscure other
optimizations in IR. So we removed the LoadCombiner pass and deferred to the backend.
Therefore, preventing SLP from destroying load combine opportunities requires that it
recognizes patterns that could be combined later, but not do the optimization itself (
it's not a vector combine anyway, so it's probably out-of-scope for SLP).
Here, we add a cost-independent bailout with a conservative pattern match for a
multi-instruction sequence that can probably be reduced later.
In the x86 tests shown (and discussed in more detail in the bug reports), SDAG combining
will produce a single instruction on these tests like:
movbe rax, qword ptr [rdi]
or:
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi]
Not some (half) vector monstrosity as we currently do using SLP:
vpmovzxbq ymm0, dword ptr [rdi + 1] # ymm0 = mem[0],zero,zero,..
vpsllvq ymm0, ymm0, ymmword ptr [rip + .LCPI0_0]
movzx eax, byte ptr [rdi]
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 5]
shl rcx, 40
movzx edx, byte ptr [rdi + 6]
shl rdx, 48
or rdx, rcx
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 7]
shl rcx, 56
or rcx, rdx
or rcx, rax
vextracti128 xmm1, ymm0, 1
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vpshufd xmm1, xmm0, 78 # xmm1 = xmm0[2,3,0,1]
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vmovq rax, xmm0
or rax, rcx
vzeroupper
ret
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67841
llvm-svn: 375025
This reverts SVN r373833, as it caused a failed assert "Non-zero loop
cost expected" on building numerous projects, see PR43582 for details
and reproduction samples.
llvm-svn: 373882
I don't see an ideal solution to these 2 related, potentially large, perf regressions:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42708https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43146
We decided that load combining was unsuitable for IR because it could obscure other
optimizations in IR. So we removed the LoadCombiner pass and deferred to the backend.
Therefore, preventing SLP from destroying load combine opportunities requires that it
recognizes patterns that could be combined later, but not do the optimization itself (
it's not a vector combine anyway, so it's probably out-of-scope for SLP).
Here, we add a scalar cost model adjustment with a conservative pattern match and cost
summation for a multi-instruction sequence that can probably be reduced later.
This should prevent SLP from creating a vector reduction unless that sequence is
extremely cheap.
In the x86 tests shown (and discussed in more detail in the bug reports), SDAG combining
will produce a single instruction on these tests like:
movbe rax, qword ptr [rdi]
or:
mov rax, qword ptr [rdi]
Not some (half) vector monstrosity as we currently do using SLP:
vpmovzxbq ymm0, dword ptr [rdi + 1] # ymm0 = mem[0],zero,zero,..
vpsllvq ymm0, ymm0, ymmword ptr [rip + .LCPI0_0]
movzx eax, byte ptr [rdi]
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 5]
shl rcx, 40
movzx edx, byte ptr [rdi + 6]
shl rdx, 48
or rdx, rcx
movzx ecx, byte ptr [rdi + 7]
shl rcx, 56
or rcx, rdx
or rcx, rax
vextracti128 xmm1, ymm0, 1
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vpshufd xmm1, xmm0, 78 # xmm1 = xmm0[2,3,0,1]
vpor xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vmovq rax, xmm0
or rax, rcx
vzeroupper
ret
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67841
llvm-svn: 373833
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 373166
Summary:
Initially SLP vectorizer replaced all going-to-be-vectorized
instructions with Undef values. It may break ScalarEvaluation and may
cause a crash.
Reworked SLP vectorizer so that it does not replace vectorized
instructions by UndefValue anymore. Instead vectorized instructions are
marked for deletion inside if BoUpSLP class and deleted upon class
destruction.
Reviewers: mzolotukhin, mkuper, hfinkel, RKSimon, davide, spatel
Subscribers: RKSimon, Gerolf, anemet, hans, majnemer, llvm-commits, sanjoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29641
llvm-svn: 372626
Sanjay Patel