We use `< UP.Threshold` later on, so we should use LoopSize + 1, to
allow unrolling if the result won't exceed to loop size.
Fixes PR43305.
Reviewers: efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67594
llvm-svn: 372084
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371635
This reverts commit r371584. It introduced a dependency from compiler-rt
to llvm/include/ADT, which is problematic for multiple reasons.
One is that it is a novel dependency edge, which needs cross-compliation
machinery for llvm/include/ADT (yes, it is true that right now
compiler-rt included only header-only libraries, however, if we allow
compiler-rt to depend on anything from ADT, other libraries will
eventually get used).
Secondly, depending on ADT from compiler-rt exposes ADT symbols from
compiler-rt, which would cause ODR violations when Clang is built with
the profile library.
llvm-svn: 371598
Currently we only rely on the induction increment to come before the
condition to ensure the required instructions get moved to the new
latch.
This patch duplicates and moves the required instructions to the
newly created latch. We move the condition to the end of the new block,
then process its operands. We stop at operands that are defined
outside the loop, or are the induction PHI.
We duplicate the instructions and update the uses in the moved
instructions, to ensure other users remain intact. See the added
test2 for such an example.
Reviewers: efriedma, mcrosier
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67367
llvm-svn: 371595
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371584
This patch contains the basic functionality for reporting potentially
incorrect usage of __builtin_expect() by comparing the developer's
annotation against a collected PGO profile. A more detailed proposal and
discussion appears on the CFE-dev mailing list
(http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-July/062971.html) and a
prototype of the initial frontend changes appear here in D65300
We revised the work in D65300 by moving the misexpect check into the
LLVM backend, and adding support for IR and sampling based profiles, in
addition to frontend instrumentation.
We add new misexpect metadata tags to those instructions directly
influenced by the llvm.expect intrinsic (branch, switch, and select)
when lowering the intrinsics. The misexpect metadata contains
information about the expected target of the intrinsic so that we can
check against the correct PGO counter when emitting diagnostics, and the
compiler's values for the LikelyBranchWeight and UnlikelyBranchWeight.
We use these branch weight values to determine when to emit the
diagnostic to the user.
A future patch should address the comment at the top of
LowerExpectIntrisic.cpp to hoist the LikelyBranchWeight and
UnlikelyBranchWeight values into a shared space that can be accessed
outside of the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass. Once that is done, the
misexpect metadata can be updated to be smaller.
In the long term, it is possible to reconstruct portions of the
misexpect metadata from the existing profile data. However, we have
avoided this to keep the code simple, and because some kind of metadata
tag will be required to identify which branch/switch/select instructions
are influenced by the use of llvm.expect
Patch By: paulkirth
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324
llvm-svn: 371484
Summary:
This is the first change to enable the TLI to be built per-function so
that -fno-builtin* handling can be migrated to use function attributes.
See discussion on D61634 for background. This is an enabler for fixing
handling of these options for LTO, for example.
This change should not affect behavior, as the provided function is not
yet used to build a specifically per-function TLI, but rather enables
that migration.
Most of the changes were very mechanical, e.g. passing a Function to the
legacy analysis pass's getTLI interface, or in Module level cases,
adding a callback. This is similar to the way the per-function TTI
analysis works.
There was one place where we were looking for builtins but not in the
context of a specific function. See FindCXAAtExit in
lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalOpt.cpp. I'm somewhat concerned my workaround
could provide the wrong behavior in some corner cases. Suggestions
welcome.
Reviewers: chandlerc, hfinkel
Subscribers: arsenm, dschuff, jvesely, nhaehnle, mehdi_amini, javed.absar, sbc100, jgravelle-google, eraman, aheejin, steven_wu, george.burgess.iv, dexonsmith, jfb, asbirlea, gchatelet, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66428
llvm-svn: 371284
If we have:
bb5:
br i1 %arg3, label %bb6, label %bb7
bb6:
%tmp = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp, align 4
br label %bb9
bb7:
%tmp8 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg1, i64 2
store i32 3, i32* %tmp8, align 4
br label %bb9
bb9: ; preds = %bb4, %bb6, %bb7
...
We can't sink stores directly into bb9.
This patch creates new BB that is successor of %bb6 and %bb7
and sinks stores into that block.
SplitFooterBB is the parameter to the pass that controls
that behavior.
Change-Id: I7fdf50a772b84633e4b1b860e905bf7e3e29940f
Differential: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66234
llvm-svn: 371089
When I dug into this, it turns out to be *much* more involved than I'd realized and doesn't actually simplify anything.
The general purpose of the leader table is that we want to find the most-dominating definition quickly. The problem for equivalance folding is slightly different; we want to find the most dominating *value* whose definition block dominates our use quickly.
To make this change, we'd end up having to restructure the leader table (either the sorting thereof, or maybe even introducing multiple leader tables per value) and that complexity is just not worth it.
llvm-svn: 370824
This extends the existing logic for propagating constant expressions in an analogous manner for what we do across basic blocks. The core point is that we chose some order of operands, and canonicalize uses towards that one.
The heuristic used is inspired by the one used across blocks; in a follow up change, I'd plan to common them so that the cross block version uses the slightly stronger ordering herein.
As noted by the TODOs in the code, there's a good amount of room for improving the existing code and making it more powerful. Some follow up work planned.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66977
llvm-svn: 370791
Use a { iN undef, i1 false } struct as the base, and only insert
the first operand, instead of using { iN undef, i1 undef } as the
base and inserting both. This is the same as what we do in InstCombine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67034
llvm-svn: 370573
This is an updated version of https://reviews.llvm.org/D66909 to fix PR42605.
Basically, current phi translatation translates an old value number to an new
value number for a call instruction based on the literal equality of call
expression, without verifying there is no clobber in between. This is incorrect.
To get a finegrain check, use MachineDependence analysis to do the job. However,
this is still not ideal. Although given a call instruction,
`MemoryDependenceResults::getCallDependencyFrom` returns identical call
instructions without clobber in between using MemDepResult with its DepType to
be `Def`. However, identical is too strict here and we want it to be relaxed a
little to consider phi-translation -- callee is the same, param operands can be
different. That means changing the semantic of `MemDepResult::Def` and I don't
know the potential impact.
So currently the patch is still conservative to only handle
MemDepResult::NonFuncLocal, which means the current call has no function local
clobber. If there is clobber, even if the clobber doesn't stand in between the
current call and the call with the new value, we won't do phi-translate.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67013
llvm-svn: 370547
Summary:
@mclow.lists brought up this issue up in IRC.
It is a reasonably common problem to compare some two values for equality.
Those may be just some integers, strings or arrays of integers.
In C, there is `memcmp()`, `bcmp()` functions.
In C++, there exists `std::equal()` algorithm.
One can also write that function manually.
libstdc++'s `std::equal()` is specialized to directly call `memcmp()` for
various types, but not `std::byte` from C++2a. https://godbolt.org/z/mx2ejJ
libc++ does not do anything like that, it simply relies on simple C++'s
`operator==()`. https://godbolt.org/z/er0Zwf (GOOD!)
So likely, there exists a certain performance opportunities.
Let's compare performance of naive `std::equal()` (no `memcmp()`) with one that
is using `memcmp()` (in this case, compiled with modified compiler). {F8768213}
```
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iterator>
#include <limits>
#include <random>
#include <type_traits>
#include <utility>
#include <vector>
#include "benchmark/benchmark.h"
template <class T>
bool equal(T* a, T* a_end, T* b) noexcept {
for (; a != a_end; ++a, ++b) {
if (*a != *b) return false;
}
return true;
}
template <typename T>
std::vector<T> getVectorOfRandomNumbers(size_t count) {
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 gen(rd());
std::uniform_int_distribution<T> dis(std::numeric_limits<T>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<T>::max());
std::vector<T> v;
v.reserve(count);
std::generate_n(std::back_inserter(v), count,
[&dis, &gen]() { return dis(gen); });
assert(v.size() == count);
return v;
}
struct Identical {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto Tmp = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
return std::make_pair(Tmp, std::move(Tmp));
}
};
struct InequalHalfway {
template <typename T>
static std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Gen(size_t count) {
auto V0 = getVectorOfRandomNumbers<T>(count);
auto V1 = V0;
V1[V1.size() / size_t(2)]++; // just change the value.
return std::make_pair(std::move(V0), std::move(V1));
}
};
template <class T, class Gen>
void BM_bcmp(benchmark::State& state) {
const size_t Length = state.range(0);
const std::pair<std::vector<T>, std::vector<T>> Data =
Gen::template Gen<T>(Length);
const std::vector<T>& a = Data.first;
const std::vector<T>& b = Data.second;
assert(a.size() == Length && b.size() == a.size());
benchmark::ClobberMemory();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(a.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b);
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(b.data());
for (auto _ : state) {
const bool is_equal = equal(a.data(), a.data() + a.size(), b.data());
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(is_equal);
}
state.SetComplexityN(Length);
state.counters["eltcnt"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariant);
state.counters["eltcnt/sec"] =
benchmark::Counter(Length, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate);
const size_t BytesRead = 2 * sizeof(T) * Length;
state.counters["bytes_read/iteration"] =
benchmark::Counter(BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kDefaults,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
state.counters["bytes_read/sec"] = benchmark::Counter(
BytesRead, benchmark::Counter::kIsIterationInvariantRate,
benchmark::Counter::OneK::kIs1024);
}
template <typename T>
static void CustomArguments(benchmark::internal::Benchmark* b) {
const size_t L2SizeBytes = []() {
for (const benchmark::CPUInfo::CacheInfo& I :
benchmark::CPUInfo::Get().caches) {
if (I.level == 2) return I.size;
}
return 0;
}();
// What is the largest range we can check to always fit within given L2 cache?
const size_t MaxLen = L2SizeBytes / /*total bufs*/ 2 /
/*maximal elt size*/ sizeof(T) / /*safety margin*/ 2;
b->RangeMultiplier(2)->Range(1, MaxLen)->Complexity(benchmark::oN);
}
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, Identical)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint8_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint8_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint16_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint16_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint32_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint32_t>);
BENCHMARK_TEMPLATE(BM_bcmp, uint64_t, InequalHalfway)
->Apply(CustomArguments<uint64_t>);
```
{F8768210}
```
$ ~/src/googlebenchmark/tools/compare.py --no-utest benchmarks build-{old,new}/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
RUNNING: build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpb6PEUx
2019-04-25 21:17:11
Running build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 0.65, 3.90, 4.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 432131 ns 432101 ns 1613 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=2.20706G/s eltcnt=825.856M eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.86 N 0.86 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 8 % 8 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 161408 ns 161409 ns 4027 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=5.90843G/s eltcnt=1030.91M eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.67 N 0.67 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 25 % 25 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 81497 ns 81488 ns 8415 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=11.7032G/s eltcnt=1077.12M eltcnt/sec=1.57078G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.71 N 0.71 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 42 % 42 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 50138 ns 50138 ns 10909 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s eltcnt=698.176M eltcnt/sec=1.27647G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.84 N 0.84 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 27 % 27 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 192405 ns 192392 ns 3638 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=4.95694G/s eltcnt=1.86266G eltcnt/sec=2.66124G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.38 N 0.38 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 3 % 3 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 127858 ns 127860 ns 5477 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=7.45873G/s eltcnt=1.40211G eltcnt/sec=2.00219G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 0 % 0 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 49140 ns 49140 ns 14281 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=19.4072G/s eltcnt=1.82797G eltcnt/sec=2.60478G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.40 N 0.40 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 18 % 18 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 32101 ns 32099 ns 21786 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=29.7101G/s eltcnt=1.3943G eltcnt/sec=1.99381G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.50 N 0.50 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 1 % 1 %
RUNNING: build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench --benchmark_out=/tmp/tmpQ46PP0
2019-04-25 21:19:29
Running build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Run on (8 X 4000 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 16K (x8)
L1 Instruction 64K (x4)
L2 Unified 2048K (x4)
L3 Unified 8192K (x1)
Load Average: 1.01, 2.85, 3.71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations UserCounters...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 18593 ns 18590 ns 37565 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s eltcnt=19.2333G eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>_RMS 37 % 37 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 18950 ns 18948 ns 37223 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.3324G/s eltcnt=9.52909G eltcnt/sec=13.511G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>_RMS 34 % 34 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 18627 ns 18627 ns 37895 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=51.198G/s eltcnt=4.85056G eltcnt/sec=6.87168G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>_RMS 35 % 35 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 18855 ns 18855 ns 37458 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=50.5791G/s eltcnt=2.39731G eltcnt/sec=3.3943G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_BigO 0.32 N 0.32 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>_RMS 33 % 33 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 9570 ns 9569 ns 73500 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.6601G/s eltcnt=37.632G eltcnt/sec=53.5046G/s
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.02 N 0.02 N
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 9547 ns 9547 ns 74343 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=99.8971G/s eltcnt=19.0318G eltcnt/sec=26.8159G/s
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.04 N 0.04 N
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 29 % 29 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 9396 ns 9394 ns 73521 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=101.518G/s eltcnt=9.41069G eltcnt/sec=13.6255G/s
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.08 N 0.08 N
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 30 % 30 %
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 9499 ns 9498 ns 73802 bytes_read/iteration=1000k bytes_read/sec=100.405G/s eltcnt=4.72333G eltcnt/sec=6.73808G/s
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_BigO 0.16 N 0.16 N
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>_RMS 28 % 28 %
Comparing build-old/test/llvm-bcmp-bench to build-new/test/llvm-bcmp-bench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, Identical>/512000 -0.9570 -0.9570 432131 18593 432101 18590
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, Identical>/256000 -0.8826 -0.8826 161408 18950 161409 18948
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, Identical>/128000 -0.7714 -0.7714 81497 18627 81488 18627
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, Identical>/64000 -0.6239 -0.6239 50138 18855 50138 18855
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint8_t, InequalHalfway>/512000 -0.9503 -0.9503 192405 9570 192392 9569
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint16_t, InequalHalfway>/256000 -0.9253 -0.9253 127858 9547 127860 9547
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint32_t, InequalHalfway>/128000 -0.8088 -0.8088 49140 9396 49140 9394
<...>
BM_bcmp<uint64_t, InequalHalfway>/64000 -0.7041 -0.7041 32101 9499 32099 9498
```
What can we tell from the benchmark?
* Performance of naive equality check somewhat improves with element size,
maxing out at eltcnt/sec=1.58603G/s for uint16_t, or bytes_read/sec=19.0209G/s
for uint64_t. I think, that instability implies performance problems.
* Performance of `memcmp()`-aware benchmark always maxes out at around
bytes_read/sec=51.2991G/s for every type. That is 2.6x the throughput of the
naive variant!
* eltcnt/sec metric for the `memcmp()`-aware benchmark maxes out at
eltcnt/sec=27.541G/s for uint8_t (was: eltcnt/sec=1.18491G/s, so 24x) and
linearly decreases with element size.
For uint64_t, it's ~4x+ the elements/second.
* The call obvious is more pricey than the loop, with small element count.
As it can be seen from the full output {F8768210}, the `memcmp()` is almost
universally worse, independent of the element size (and thus buffer size) when
element count is less than 8.
So all in all, bcmp idiom does indeed pose untapped performance headroom.
This diff does implement said idiom recognition. I think a reasonable test
coverage is present, but do tell if there is anything obvious missing.
Now, quality. This does succeed to build and pass the test-suite, at least
without any non-bundled elements. {F8768216} {F8768217}
This transform fires 91 times:
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m loop-idiom.NumBCmp result-new.json
Tests: 1149
Metric: loop-idiom.NumBCmp
Program result-new
MultiSourc...Benchmarks/7zip/7zip-benchmark 79.00
MultiSource/Applications/d/make_dparser 3.00
SingleSource/UnitTests/vla 2.00
MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg 1.00
MultiSourc.../Applications/JM/lencod/lencod 1.00
MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon 1.00
MultiSource/Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet 1.00
MultiSourc...e/Benchmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs 1.00
MultiSourc...gs-C/TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc 1.00
MultiSourc...Prolangs-C/simulator/simulator 1.00
```
The size changes are:
I'm not sure what's going on with SingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test yet, did not look.
```
$ /build/test-suite/utils/compare.py -m size..text result-{old,new}.json --filter-hash
Tests: 1149
Same hash: 907 (filtered out)
Remaining: 242
Metric: size..text
Program result-old result-new diff
test-suite...ingleSource/UnitTests/vla.test 753.00 833.00 10.6%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 1001697.00 966657.00 -3.5%
test-suite...ngs-C/simulator/simulator.test 32369.00 32321.00 -0.1%
test-suite...plications/d/make_dparser.test 89585.00 89505.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ce/Applications/Burg/burg.test 40817.00 40785.00 -0.1%
test-suite.../Applications/lemon/lemon.test 47281.00 47249.00 -0.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 250065.00 250113.00 0.0%
test-suite...chmarks/MallocBench/gs/gs.test 149889.00 149873.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 769585.00 769569.00 -0.0%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 770049.00 770049.00 0.0%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/128 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...HMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/256 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/64 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...CHMARK_ANISTROPIC_DIFFUSION/32 NaN NaN nan%
test-suite...ENCHMARK_BILATERAL_FILTER/64/4 NaN NaN nan%
Geomean difference nan%
result-old result-new diff
count 1.000000e+01 10.00000 10.000000
mean 3.152090e+05 311695.40000 0.006749
std 3.790398e+05 372091.42232 0.036605
min 7.530000e+02 833.00000 -0.034981
25% 4.243300e+04 42401.00000 -0.000866
50% 1.197370e+05 119689.00000 -0.000392
75% 6.397050e+05 639705.00000 -0.000005
max 1.001697e+06 966657.00000 0.106242
```
I don't have timings though.
And now to the code. The basic idea is to completely replace the whole loop.
If we can't fully kill it, don't transform.
I have left one or two comments in the code, so hopefully it can be understood.
Also, there is a few TODO's that i have left for follow-ups:
* widening of `memcmp()`/`bcmp()`
* step smaller than the comparison size
* Metadata propagation
* more than two blocks as long as there is still a single backedge?
* ???
Reviewers: reames, fhahn, mkazantsev, chandlerc, craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: hiraditya, xbolva00, nikic, jfb, gchatelet, courbet, llvm-commits, mclow.lists
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61144
llvm-svn: 370454
The code we had isSafeToLoadUnconditionally was blatantly wrong. This function takes a "Size" argument which is supposed to describe the span loaded from. Instead, the code use the size of the pointer passed (which may be unrelated!) and only checks that span. For any Size > LoadSize, this can and does lead to miscompiles.
Worse, the generic code just a few lines above correctly handles the cases which *are* valid. So, let's delete said code.
Removing this code revealed two issues:
1) As noted by jdoerfert the removed code incorrectly handled external globals. The test update in SROA is to stop testing incorrect behavior.
2) SROA was confusing bytes and bits, but this wasn't obvious as the Size parameter was being essentially ignored anyway. Fixed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66778
llvm-svn: 370102
We were computing the loop exit value, but not ensuring the addrec belonged to the loop whose exit value we were computing. I couldn't actually trip this; the test case shows the basic setup which *might* trip this, but none of the variations I've tried actually do.
llvm-svn: 369730
The alignment is calculated incorrectly, thus sometimes it doesn't generate aligned mov instructions, as shown by the example below:
```
// b.cc
typedef long long index;
extern "C" index g_tid;
extern "C" index g_num;
void add3(float* __restrict__ a, float* __restrict__ b, float* __restrict__ c) {
index n = 64*1024;
index m = 16*1024;
index k = 4*1024;
index tid = g_tid;
index num = g_num;
__builtin_assume_aligned(a, 32);
__builtin_assume_aligned(b, 32);
__builtin_assume_aligned(c, 32);
for (index i0=tid*k; i0<m; i0+=num*k)
for (index i1=0; i1<n*m; i1+=m)
for (index i2=0; i2<k; i2++)
c[i1+i0+i2] = b[i0+i2] + a[i1+i0+i2];
}
```
Compile with `clang b.cc -Ofast -march=skylake -mavx2 -S`
```
vmovaps -224(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm0
vmovups -192(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm1 # should be movaps
vmovups -160(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm2 # should be movaps
vmovups -128(%rdi,%rbx,4), %ymm3 # should be movaps
vaddps -224(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm0, %ymm0
vaddps -192(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm1, %ymm1
vaddps -160(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm2, %ymm2
vaddps -128(%rsi,%rbx,4), %ymm3, %ymm3
vmovaps %ymm0, -224(%rdx,%rbx,4)
vmovups %ymm1, -192(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
vmovups %ymm2, -160(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
vmovups %ymm3, -128(%rdx,%rbx,4) # should be movaps
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66575
Patch by Dun Liang
llvm-svn: 369723
Currently we do not properly translate addresses with PHIs if LoadBB !=
LI->getParent(), because PHITranslateAddr expects a direct predecessor as argument,
because it considers all instructions outside of the current block to
not requiring translation.
The amount of cases that trigger this should be very low, as most single
predecessor blocks should be folded into their predecessor by GVN before
we actually start with value numbering. It is still not guaranteed to
happen, so we should do PHI translation along all edges between the
loads' block and the predecessor where we have to place a load.
There are a few test cases showing current limits of the PHI translation, which
could be improved later.
Reviewers: spatel, reames, efriedma, john.brawn
Reviewed By: efriedma
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65020
llvm-svn: 369570
Summary:
Simplify the API using Optional<> and address comments in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66165
Reviewers: vitalybuka
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits, ostannard, pcc
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66317
llvm-svn: 369300
Summary:
When inserting uses from outside the MemorySSA creation, we don't
normally need to rename uses, based on the assumption that there will be
no inserted Phis (if Def existed that required a Phi, that Phi already
exists). However, when dealing with unreachable blocks, MemorySSA will
optimize away Phis whose incoming blocks are unreachable, and these Phis end
up being re-added when inserting a Use.
There are two potential solutions here:
1. Analyze the inserted Phis and clean them up if they are unneeded
(current method for cleaning up trivial phis does not cover this)
2. Leave the Phi in place and rename uses, the same way as whe inserting
defs.
This patch use approach 2.
Resolves first test in PR42940.
Reviewers: george.burgess.iv
Subscribers: Prazek, sanjoy.google, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66033
llvm-svn: 369291
This patch applies only to the new pass manager.
Currently, when MSSA Analysis is available, and pass to each loop pass, it will be preserved by that loop pass.
Hence, mark the analysis preserved based on that condition, vs the current `EnableMSSALoopDependency`. This leaves the global flag to affect only the entry point in the loop pass manager (in FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor).
llvm-svn: 369181
Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances across the monorepo.
llvm-svn: 369013
We already supported rewriting loop exit values for multiple exit loops, but if any of the loop exits were not computable, we gave up on all loop exit values. This patch generalizes the existing code to handle individual computable loop exits where possible.
As discussed in the review, this is a starting point for figuring out a better API. The code is a bit ugly, but getting it in lets us test as we go.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65544
llvm-svn: 368898
I'm planning on handling intrinsics that will benefit from checking
the address space enums. Don't bother moving the address collection
for now, since those won't need th enums.
llvm-svn: 368895
Summary:
We can't speculate around indirect branches: indirectbr and invoke. The
callbr instruction needs to be included here.
Reviewers: nickdesaulniers, manojgupta, chandlerc
Reviewed By: chandlerc
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66200
llvm-svn: 368873
Summary:
Hoisting/sinking instruction out of a loop isn't always beneficial. Hoisting an instruction from a cold block inside a loop body out of the loop could hurt performance. This change makes Loop ICM profile aware - it now checks block frequency to make sure hoisting/sinking anly moves instruction to colder block.
Test Plan:
ninja check
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy, reames, nikic, hfinkel, vsk
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Subscribers: fhahn, vsk, davidxl, xbolva00, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65060
llvm-svn: 368526
This is an extension of a transform that tries to produce positive floating-point
constants to improve canonicalization (and hopefully lead to more reassociation
and CSE).
The original patches were:
D4904
D5363 (rL221721)
But as the test diffs show, these were limited to basic patterns by walking from
an instruction to its single user rather than recursively moving up the def-use
sequence. No fast-math is required here because we're only rearranging implicit
FP negations in intermediate ops.
A motivating bug is:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32939
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65954
llvm-svn: 368512
Summary:
Make sure that we report that changes has been made
by InstSimplify also in situations when only trivially
dead instructions has been removed. If for example a call
is removed the call graph must be updated.
Bug seem to have been introduced by llvm-svn r367173
(commit 02b9e45a7e), since the code in question
was rewritten in that commit.
Reviewers: spatel, chandlerc, foad
Reviewed By: spatel
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65973
llvm-svn: 368401
For some targets the LICM pass can result in sub-optimal code in some
cases where it would be better not to run the pass, but it isn't
always possible to suppress the transformations heuristically.
Where the front-end has insight into such cases it is beneficial
to attach loop metadata to disable the pass - this change adds the
llvm.licm.disable metadata to enable that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64557
llvm-svn: 368296
Florian Hahn