Loop peeling removes conditions from loop bodies that become invariant
after a small number of iterations. When triggered, this leads to fewer
compares and possibly PHIs in loop bodies, enabling further
optimizations. The current cost-model of loop peeling should be quite
conservative/safe, i.e. only peel if a condition in the loop becomes
known after peeling.
For example, see PR47671, where loop peeling enables vectorization by
removing a PHI the vectorizer does not understand. Granted, the
loop-vectorizer could also be taught about constant PHIs, but loop
peeling is likely to enable other optimizations as well.
This has an impact on quite a few benchmarks from
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 on X86 with -O3 -flto, for example
Same hash: 186 (filtered out)
Remaining: 51
Metric: loop-vectorize.LoopsVectorized
Program base patch diff
test-suite...ve-susan/automotive-susan.test 8.00 9.00 12.5%
test-suite...nal/skidmarks10/skidmarks.test 35.00 31.00 -11.4%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 41.00 43.00 4.9%
test-suite...s/ASC_Sequoia/AMGmk/AMGmk.test 25.00 26.00 4.0%
test-suite...006/450.soplex/450.soplex.test 88.00 89.00 1.1%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 120.00 119.00 -0.8%
test-suite.../CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc.test 215.00 216.00 0.5%
test-suite...006/447.dealII/447.dealII.test 957.00 958.00 0.1%
test-suite...ternal/HMMER/hmmcalibrate.test 75.00 75.00 0.0%
Same hash: 186 (filtered out)
Remaining: 51
Metric: loop-vectorize.LoopsAnalyzed
Program base patch diff
test-suite...ks/Prolangs-C/agrep/agrep.test 440.00 434.00 -1.4%
test-suite...nal/skidmarks10/skidmarks.test 312.00 308.00 -1.3%
test-suite...marks/7zip/7zip-benchmark.test 6399.00 6323.00 -1.2%
test-suite...lications/minisat/minisat.test 134.00 135.00 0.7%
test-suite...rks/FreeBench/pifft/pifft.test 295.00 297.00 0.7%
test-suite...TimberWolfMC/timberwolfmc.test 1879.00 1869.00 -0.5%
test-suite...pplications/treecc/treecc.test 689.00 691.00 0.3%
test-suite...T2000/300.twolf/300.twolf.test 1593.00 1597.00 0.3%
test-suite.../Benchmarks/Bullet/bullet.test 1394.00 1392.00 -0.1%
test-suite...ications/JM/ldecod/ldecod.test 1431.00 1429.00 -0.1%
test-suite...6/464.h264ref/464.h264ref.test 2229.00 2230.00 0.0%
test-suite...lications/sqlite3/sqlite3.test 2590.00 2589.00 -0.0%
test-suite...ications/JM/lencod/lencod.test 2732.00 2733.00 0.0%
test-suite...006/453.povray/453.povray.test 3395.00 3394.00 -0.0%
Note the -11% regression in number of loops vectorized for skidmarks. I
suspect this corresponds to the fact that those loops are gone now (see
the reduction in number of loops analyzed by LV).
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88471
This change leverages the work done in D83743 to replay in the SampleProfile inliner to also be used in the CGSCC inliner. NOTE: currently restricted to non-ML advisors only.
The added switch `-cgscc-inline-replay=<remarks file>` will replay the inlining decisions in that file where the remarks file is generated via `-Rpass=inline`. The aim here is to make it easier to analyze changes that would modify inlining heuristics to be separated from this behavior. Doing so allows easier examination of assembly and runtime behavior compared to the baseline rather than trying to dig through the large churn caused by inlining.
In LTO compilation, since inlining is done twice you can separately specify replay by passing the flag to the FE (`-cgscc-inline-replay=`) and to the linker (`-Wl,cgscc-inline-replay=`) with the remarks generated from their respective places.
Testing on mysqld by comparing the inline decisions between base (generates remarks.txt) and diff (replay using identical input/tools with remarks.txt) and examining the inlining sites with `diff` shows 14,000 mismatches out of 247,341 for a ~94% replay accuracy. I believe this gap can be narrowed further though for the general case we may never achieve full accuracy. For my personal use, this is close enough to be representative: I set the baseline as the one generated by the replay on identical input/toolset and compare that to my modified input/toolset using the same replay.
Testing:
ninja check-llvm
newly added test correctly replays CGSCC inlining decisions
Reviewed By: mtrofin, wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94334
or claimRV calls in the IR
Background:
This patch makes changes to the front-end and middle-end that are
needed to fix a longstanding problem where llvm breaks ARC's autorelease
optimization (see the link below) by separating calls from the marker
instructions or retainRV/claimRV calls. The backend changes are in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D92569.
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AutomaticReferenceCounting.html#arc-runtime-objc-autoreleasereturnvalue
What this patch does to fix the problem:
- The front-end annotates calls with attribute "clang.arc.rv"="retain"
or "clang.arc.rv"="claim", which indicates the call is implicitly
followed by a marker instruction and a retainRV/claimRV call that
consumes the call result. This is currently done only when the target
is arm64 and the optimization level is higher than -O0.
- ARC optimizer temporarily emits retainRV/claimRV calls after the
annotated calls in the IR and removes the inserted calls after
processing the function.
- ARC contract pass emits retainRV/claimRV calls after the annotated
calls. It doesn't remove the attribute on the call since the backend
needs it to emit the marker instruction. The retainRV/claimRV calls
are emitted late in the pipeline to prevent optimization passes from
transforming the IR in a way that makes it harder for the ARC
middle-end passes to figure out the def-use relationship between the
call and the retainRV/claimRV calls (which is the cause of PR31925).
- The function inliner removes the autoreleaseRV call in the callee that
returns the result if nothing in the callee prevents it from being
paired up with the calls annotated with "clang.arc.rv"="retain/claim"
in the caller. If the call is annotated with "claim", a release call
is inserted since autoreleaseRV+claimRV is equivalent to a release. If
it cannot find an autoreleaseRV call, it tries to transfer the
attributes to a function call in the callee. This is important since
ARC optimizer can remove the autoreleaseRV call returning the callee
result, which makes it impossible to pair it up with the retainRV or
claimRV call in the caller. If that fails, it simply emits a retain
call in the IR if the call is annotated with "retain" and does nothing
if it's annotated with "claim".
- This patch teaches dead argument elimination pass not to change the
return type of a function if any of the calls to the function are
annotated with attribute "clang.arc.rv". This is necessary since the
pass can incorrectly determine nothing in the IR uses the function
return, which can happen since the front-end no longer explicitly
emits retainRV/claimRV calls in the IR, and change its return type to
'void'.
Future work:
- Use the attribute on x86-64.
- Fix the auto upgrader to convert call+retainRV/claimRV pairs into
calls annotated with the attributes.
rdar://71443534
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92808
turning off SampleFDO silently.
Currently sample loader pass turns off SampleFDO optimization silently when
it sees error in reading the profile. This behavior will defeat the tests
which could have caught those bad/incompatible profile problems. This patch
change the behavior to report error.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95269
If a function doesn't contain loops and does not call non-willreturn
functions, then it is willreturn. Loops are detected by checking
for backedges in the function. We don't attempt to handle finite
loops at this point.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94633
This reverts commit d97f776be5.
The original problem was due to build failures in shared lib builds. D95079
moved ImportedFunctionsInliningStatistics under Analysis, unblocking
this.
This is related to D94982. We want to call these APIs from the Analysis
component, so we can't leave them under Transforms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95079
When using 2 InlinePass instances in the same CGSCC - one for other
mandatory inlinings, the other for the heuristic-driven ones - the order
in which the ImportedFunctionStats would be output-ed would depend on
the destruction order of the inline passes, which is not deterministic.
This patch moves the ImportedFunctionStats responsibility to the
InlineAdvisor to address this problem.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94982
Currently LLVM is relying on ValueTracking's `isKnownNonZero` to attach `nonnull`, which can return true when the value is poison.
To make the semantics of `nonnull` consistent with the behavior of `isKnownNonZero`, this makes the semantics of `nonnull` to accept poison, and return poison if the input pointer isn't null.
This makes many transformations like below legal:
```
%p = gep inbounds %x, 1 ; % p is non-null pointer or poison
call void @f(%p) ; instcombine converts this to call void @f(nonnull %p)
```
Instead, this semantics makes propagation of `nonnull` to caller illegal.
The reason is that, passing poison to `nonnull` does not immediately raise UB anymore, so such program is still well defined, if the callee does not use the argument.
Having `noundef` attribute there re-allows this.
```
define void @f(i8* %p) { ; functionattr cannot mark %p nonnull here anymore
call void @g(i8* nonnull %p) ; .. because @g never raises UB if it never uses %p.
ret void
}
```
Another attribute that needs to be updated is `align`. This patch updates the semantics of align to accept poison as well.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90529
separate sections.
For ThinLTO, all the function profiles without context has been annotated to
outline functions if possible in prelink phase. In postlink phase, profile
annotation in postlink phase is only meaningful for function profile with
context. If the profile is large, it is better to split the profile into two
parts, one with context and one without, so the profile reading in postlink
phase only has to read the part with context. To have the profile splitting,
we extend the ExtBinary format to support different section arrangement. It
will be flexible to add other section layout in the future without the need
to create new class inheriting from ExtBinary class.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94435
D84108 exposed a bad interaction between inlining and loop-rotation
during regular LTO, which is causing notable regressions in at least
CINT2006/473.astar.
The problem boils down to: we now rotate a loop just before the vectorizer
which requires duplicating a function call in the preheader when compiling
the individual files ('prepare for LTO'). But this then prevents further
inlining of the function during LTO.
This patch tries to resolve this issue by making LoopRotate more
conservative with respect to rotating loops that have inline-able calls
during the 'prepare for LTO' stage.
I think this change intuitively improves the current situation in
general. Loop-rotate tries hard to avoid creating headers that are 'too
big'. At the moment, it assumes all inlining already happened and the
cost of duplicating a call is equal to just doing the call. But with LTO,
inlining also happens during full LTO and it is possible that a previously
duplicated call is actually a huge function which gets inlined
during LTO.
From the perspective of LV, not much should change overall. Most loops
calling user-provided functions won't get vectorized to start with
(unless we can infer that the function does not touch memory, has no
other side effects). If we do not inline the 'inline-able' call during
the LTO stage, we merely delayed loop-rotation & vectorization. If we
inline during LTO, chances should be very high that the inlined code is
itself vectorizable or the user call was not vectorizable to start with.
There could of course be scenarios where we inline a sufficiently large
function with code not profitable to vectorize, which would have be
vectorized earlier (by scalarzing the call). But even in that case,
there probably is no big performance impact, because it should be mostly
down to the cost-model to reject vectorization in that case. And then
the version with scalarized calls should also not be beneficial. In a way,
LV should have strictly more information after inlining and make more
accurate decisions (barring cost-model issues).
There is of course plenty of room for things to go wrong unexpectedly,
so we need to keep a close look at actual performance and address any
follow-up issues.
I took a look at the impact on statistics for
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006. There are a few benchmarks with fewer
loops rotated, but no change to the number of loops vectorized.
Reviewed By: sanwou01
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94232
Expanding from D94808 - we ensure the same InlineAdvisor is used by both
InlinerPass instances. The notion of mandatory inlining is moved into
the core InlineAdvisor: advisors anyway have to handle that case, so
this change also factors out that a bit better.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94825
to Pass.h.
In some compiler passes like SampleProfileLoaderPass, we want to know which
LTO/ThinLTO phase the pass is in. Currently the phase is represented in enum
class PassBuilder::ThinLTOPhase, so it is only available in PassBuilder and
it also cannot represent phase in full LTO. The patch extends it to include
full LTO phases and move it from PassBuilder.h to Pass.h, then it is much
easier for PassBuilder to communiate with each pass about current LTO phase.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94613
In commit 700d2417d8 the CodeExtractor
was updated so that bitcasts that have lifetime markers that beginning
outside of the region are deduplicated outside the region and are not
used as an output. This caused a discrepancy in the IROutliner, where
in these cases there were arguments added to the aggregate function
that were not needed causing assertion errors.
The IROutliner queries the CodeExtractor twice to determine the inputs
and outputs, before and after `findAllocas` is called with the same
ValueSet for the outputs causing the duplication. This has been fixed
with a dummy ValueSet for the first call.
However, the additional bitcasts prevent us from using the same
similarity relationships that were previously defined by the
IR Similarity Analysis Pass. In these cases, we check whether the
initial version of the region being analyzed for outlining is still the
same as it was previously. If it is not, i.e. because of the additional
bitcast instructions from the CodeExtractor, we discard the region.
Reviewers: yroux
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94303
This change modifies the source location formatting from:
LineNumber.Discriminator
to:
LineNumber:ColumnNumber.Discriminator
The motivation here is to enhance location information for inline replay that currently exists for the SampleProfile inliner. This will be leveraged further in inline replay for the CGSCC inliner in the related diff.
The ReplayInlineAdvisor is also modified to read the new format and now takes into account the callee for greater accuracy.
Testing:
ninja check-llvm
Reviewed By: mtrofin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94333
Similar to D94125, derive `willreturn` for functions that are `readonly` and
`mustprogress` in FunctionAttrs.
To quote the reasoning from D94125:
Since D86233 we have `mustprogress` which, in combination with
`readonly`, implies `willreturn`. The idea is that every side-effect
has to be modeled as a "write". Consequently, `readonly` means there
is no side-effect, and `mustprogress` guarantees that we cannot "loop"
forever without side-effect.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert, nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94502
The existing implementation of parallel region merging applies only to
consecutive parallel regions that have speculatable sequential
instructions in-between. This patch lifts this limitation to expand
merging with any sequential instructions in-between, except calls to
unmergable OpenMP runtime functions. In-between sequential instructions
in the merged region are sequentialized in a "master" region and any
output values are broadcasted to the following parallel regions and the
sequential region continuation of the merged region.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90909
Currently make_early_inc_range cannot be used with iterators with
operator* implementations that do not return a reference.
Most notably in the LLVM codebase, this means the User iterator ranges
cannot be used with make_early_inc_range, which slightly simplifies
iterating over ranges while elements are removed.
Instead of directly using BaseT::reference as return type of operator*,
this patch uses decltype to get the actual return type of the operator*
implementation in WrappedIteratorT.
This patch also updates a few places to use make use of
make_early_inc_range.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93992
Previously when trying to support CoroSplit's function splitting, we
added in a hack that simply added the new function's node into the
original function's SCC (https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798). This is
incorrect since it might be in its own SCC.
Now, more similar to the previous design, we have callers explicitly
notify the LazyCallGraph that a function has been split out from another
one.
In order to properly support CoroSplit, there are two ways functions can
be split out.
One is the normal expected "outlining" of one function into a new one.
The new function may only contain references to other functions that the
original did. The original function must reference the new function. The
new function may reference the original function, which can result in
the new function being in the same SCC as the original function. The
weird case is when the original function indirectly references the new
function, but the new function directly calls the original function,
resulting in the new SCC being a parent of the original function's SCC.
This form of function splitting works with CoroSplit's Switch ABI.
The second way of splitting is more specific to CoroSplit. CoroSplit's
Retcon and Async ABIs split the original function into multiple
functions that all reference each other and are referenced by the
original function. In order to keep the LazyCallGraph in a valid state,
all new functions must be processed together, else some nodes won't be
populated. To keep things simple, this only supports the case where all
new edges are ref edges, and every new function references every other
new function. There can be a reference back from any new function to the
original function, putting all functions in the same RefSCC.
This also adds asserts that all nodes in a (Ref)SCC can reach all other
nodes to prevent future incorrect hacks.
The original hacks in https://reviews.llvm.org/D87798 are no longer
necessary since all new functions should have been registered before
calling updateCGAndAnalysisManagerForPass.
This fixes all coroutine tests when opt's -enable-new-pm is true by
default. This also fixes PR48190, which was likely due to the previous
hack breaking SCC invariants.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93828
A function is noreturn if all blocks terminating with a ReturnInst
contain a call to a noreturn function. Skip looking at naked functions
since there may be asm that returns.
This can be further refined in the future by checking unreachable blocks
and taking into account recursion. It looks like the attributor pass
does this, but that is not yet enabled by default.
This seems to help with code size under the new PM since PruneEH does
not run under the new PM, missing opportunities to mark some functions
noreturn, which in turn doesn't allow simplifycfg to clean up dead code.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46858.
Reviewed By: rnk
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93946
bb7d3af113 disabled hoisting in SimplifyCFG by default, but enabled it
late in the pipeline. But it appears as if the LTO pipelines got missed.
This patch adjusts the LTO pipelines to also enable hoisting in the
later stages.
Unfortunately there's no easy way to add a test for the change I think.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93684
Currently ArgPromotion removes dead GEPs as part of the legality check
in isSafeToPromoteArgument. If no promotion happens, this means the pass
claims no modifications happened, even though GEPs were removed.
This patch fixes the issue by delaying removal of dead GEPs until
doPromotion: isSafeToPromoteArgument can simply skips dead GEPs and
the code in doPromotion dealing with GEPs is updated to account for
dead GEPs. Once we committed to promotion, it should be safe to
remove dead GEPs.
Alternatively isSafeToPromoteArgument could return an additional boolean
to indicate whether it made changes, but this is quite cumbersome and
there should be no real benefit of weeding out some dead GEPs here if we
do not perform promotion.
I added a test for the case where dead GEPs need to be removed when
promotion happens in 578c5a0c6e.
Fixes PR47477.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93991
When combining extracted functions, they may have different function
attributes. We want to make sure that we do not make any assumptions,
or lose any information. This attempts to make sure that we consolidate
function attributes to their most general case.
Tests:
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-compatible-and-attribute-transfer.ll
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-compatible-or-attribute-transfer.ll
Reviewers: jdoefert, paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87301
The default value is dependent on `-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS={off,on}` (D22167), which is
error-prone. The few tests checking `!thinlto_src_module` can specify -enable-import-metadata explicitly.
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93959
There are functions that the linker is able to automatically
deduplicate, we do not outline from these functions by default. This
allows for outlining from those functions.
Tests:
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-odr.ll
Reviewers: jroelofs, paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87309
Since some values can be swift errors, we need to make sure that we
correctly propagate the parameter attributes.
Tests found at:
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-swift-error.ll
Reviewers: jroelofs, paquette
Recommit of: 71867ed5e6
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87742
This prints OptRemarks at each location where a decision is made to not
outline, or to outline a specific section for the IROutliner pass.
Test:
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/opt-remarks.ll
Reviewers: jroelofs, paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87300
This adds a cost model that takes into account the total number of
machine instructions to be removed from each region, the number of
instructions added by adding a new function with a set of instructions,
and the instructions added by handling arguments.
Tests not adding flags:
llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-cost-model.ll
Reviewers: jroelofs, paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87299
Many of the sets of output stores will be the same. When a block is
created, we check if there is an output block with the same set of store
instructions. If there is, we map the output block of the region back
to the block, so that the extra argument controlling the switch
statement can be set to the appropriate block value.
Tests:
- llvm/test/Transforms/IROutliner/outlining-same-output-blocks.ll
Reviewers: jroelofs, paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87298
Florian Hahn