Now that VPRecipeBase inherits from VPDef, we can always use the new
VPValue for replacement, if the recipe defines one. Given the recipes
that are supported at the moment, all new recipes must have either 0 or
1 defined values.
a6f0221276 enabled intersection of FMF on reduction instructions,
so it is safe to ease the check here.
There is still some room to improve here - it looks like we
have nearly duplicate flags propagation logic inside of the
LoopUtils helper but it is limited targets that do not form
reduction intrinsics (they form the shuffle expansion).
Add an intrinsic type class to represent the
llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl intrinsic, to make code
working with it a bit nicer by hiding the metadata extraction
from view.
As shown in the test diffs, we could miscompile by
propagating flags that did not exist in the original
code.
The flags required for fmin/fmax reductions will be
fixed in a follow-up patch.
Walking the use list of a Constant (particularly, ConstantData)
is not scalable, since a given constant may be used by many
instructinos in many functions in many modules.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94713
I have removed an unnecessary assert in LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInstructionCost
that prevented a cost being calculated for select instructions when using
scalable vectors. In addition, I have changed AArch64TTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost
to only do special cost calculations for fixed width vectors and fall
back to the base version for scalable vectors.
I have added a simple cost model test for cmps and selects:
test/Analysis/CostModel/sve-cmpsel.ll
and some simple tests that show we vectorize loops with cmp and select:
test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-basic-vec.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95039
This adds cost modelling for the inloop vectorization added in
745bf6cf44. Up until now they have been modelled as the original
underlying instruction, usually an add. This happens to works OK for MVE
with instructions that are reducing into the same type as they are
working on. But MVE's instructions can perform the equivalent of an
extended MLA as a single instruction:
%sa = sext <16 x i8> A to <16 x i32>
%sb = sext <16 x i8> B to <16 x i32>
%m = mul <16 x i32> %sa, %sb
%r = vecreduce.add(%m)
->
R = VMLADAV A, B
There are other instructions for performing add reductions of
v4i32/v8i16/v16i8 into i32 (VADDV), for doing the same with v4i32->i64
(VADDLV) and for performing a v4i32/v8i16 MLA into an i64 (VMLALDAV).
The i64 are particularly interesting as there are no native i64 add/mul
instructions, leading to the i64 add and mul naturally getting very
high costs.
Also worth mentioning, under NEON there is the concept of a sdot/udot
instruction which performs a partial reduction from a v16i8 to a v4i32.
They extend and mul/sum the first four elements from the inputs into the
first element of the output, repeating for each of the four output
lanes. They could possibly be represented in the same way as above in
llvm, so long as a vecreduce.add could perform a partial reduction. The
vectorizer would then produce a combination of in and outer loop
reductions to efficiently use the sdot and udot instructions. Although
this patch does not do that yet, it does suggest that separating the
input reduction type from the produced result type is a useful concept
to model. It also shows that a MLA reduction as a single instruction is
fairly common.
This patch attempt to improve the costmodelling of in-loop reductions
by:
- Adding some pattern matching in the loop vectorizer cost model to
match extended reduction patterns that are optionally extended and/or
MLA patterns. This marks the cost of the reduction instruction correctly
and the sext/zext/mul leading up to it as free, which is otherwise
difficult to tell and may get a very high cost. (In the long run this
can hopefully be replaced by vplan producing a single node and costing
it correctly, but that is not yet something that vplan can do).
- getExtendedAddReductionCost is added to query the cost of these
extended reduction patterns.
- Expanded the ARM costs to account for these expanded sizes, which is a
fairly simple change in itself.
- Some minor alterations to allow inloop reduction larger than the highest
vector width and i64 MVE reductions.
- An extra InLoopReductionImmediateChains map was added to the vectorizer
for it to efficiently detect which instructions are reductions in the
cost model.
- The tests have some updates to show what I believe is optimal
vectorization and where we are now.
Put together this can greatly improve performance for reduction loop
under MVE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93476
This is NFC-intended and removes the "OperationData"
class which had become nothing more than a recurrence
(reduction) type.
I adjusted the matching logic to distinguish
instructions from non-instructions - that's all that
the "IsLeafValue" member was keeping track of.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
More streamlining is possible, but I'm trying to avoid
logic/typo bugs while fixing this. Eventually, we should
not need the `OperationData` class.
We were able to remove almost all of the state from
OperationData, so these don't make sense as members
of that class - just pass the RecurKind in as a param.
Just like llvm.assume, there are a lot of cases where we can just ignore llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93042
A previous patch has already changed getInstructionCost to return
an InstructionCost type. This patch changes the other various
getXXXCost functions to return an InstructionCost too. This is a
non-functional change - I've added a few asserts that the costs
are valid in places where we're selecting between vector call
and intrinsic costs. However, since we don't yet return invalid
costs from any of the TTI implementations these asserts should
not fire.
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94065
After much refactoring over the last 2 weeks to the reduction
matching code, I think this change is finally ready.
We effectively broke fmax/fmin vector reduction optimization
when we started canonicalizing to intrinsics in instcombine,
so this should restore that functionality for SLP.
There are still FMF problems here as noted in the code comments,
but we should be avoiding miscompiles on those for fmax/fmin by
restricting to full 'fast' ops (negative tests are included).
Fixing FMF propagation is a planned follow-up.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94913
This will avoid confusion once we start matching
min/max intrinsics. All of these hacks to accomodate
cmp+sel idioms should disappear once we canonicalize
to min/max intrinsics.
The icmp opcode is now hard-coded in the cost model call.
This will make it easier to eventually remove all opcode
queries for min/max patterns as we transition to intrinsics.
This patch changes these functions:
vectorizeLoadInsert
isExtractExtractCheap
foldExtractedCmps
scalarizeBinopOrCmp
getShuffleExtract
foldBitcastShuf
to use the class InstructionCost when calling TTI.get<something>Cost().
This patch is part of a series of patches to use InstructionCost instead of
unsigned/int for the cost model functions.
See this thread for context:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
See this patch for the introduction of the type:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
ps.:This patch adds the test || !NewCost.isValid(), because we want to
return false when:
!NewCost.isValid && !OldCost.isValid()->the cost to transform it expensive
and
!NewCost.isValid() && OldCost.isValid()
Therefore for simplication we only add test for !NewCost.isValid()
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94069
This is NFC-intended and another step towards supporting
intrinsics as reduction candidates.
The remaining bits of the OperationData class do not make
much sense as-is, so I will try to improve that, but I'm
trying to take minimal steps because it's still not clear
how this was intended to work.
This is another NFC-intended patch to allow matching
intrinsics (example: maxnum) as candidates for reductions.
It's possible that the loop/if logic can be reduced now,
but it's still difficult to understand how this all works.
To get into this block we had: !A || B || C
and we checked C in the first 'if' clause
leaving !A || B. But the 2nd 'if' is checking:
A && !B --> !(!A || B)
This is NFC-intended. I'm still trying to figure out
how the loop where this is used works. It does not
seem like we require this data at all, but it's
hard to confirm given the complicated predicates.
In the spirit of commit fc783e91e0 (llvm-svn: 248943) we
shouldn't vectorize stores of non-packed types (i.e. types that
has padding between consecutive variables in a scalar layout,
but being packed in a vector layout).
The problem was detected as a miscompile in a downstream test case.
Reviewed By: anton-afanasyev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94446
This relates to the ongoing effort to support vectorization of multiple exit loops (see D93317).
The previous code assumed that LCSSA phis were always single entry before the vectorizer ran. This was correct, but only because the vectorizer allowed only a single exiting edge. There's nothing in the definition of LCSSA which requires single entry phis.
A common case where this comes up is with a loop with multiple exiting blocks which all reach a common exit block. (e.g. see the test updates)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93725
This patch unifies the way recipes and VPValues are printed after the
transition to VPDef.
VPSlotTracker has been updated to iterate over all recipes and all
their defined values to number those. There is no need to number
values in Value2VPValue.
It also updates a few places that only used slot numbers for
VPInstruction. All recipes now can produce numbered VPValues.
This patch is part of a series of patches that migrate integer
instruction costs to use InstructionCost. In the function
selectVectorizationFactor I have simply asserted that the cost
is valid and extracted the value as is. In future we expect
to encounter invalid costs, but we should filter out those
vectorization factors that lead to such invalid costs.
See this patch for the introduction of the type: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
See this thread for context: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-November/146408.html
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92178
A severe compile-time slowdown from this call is noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR48689
My naive fix was to put it under LLVM_DEBUG ( 267ff79 ),
but that's not limiting in the way we want.
This is a quick fix (or we could just remove the call completely
and rely on some later pass to discover potentially wrong IR?).
A bigger/better fix would be to improve/limit verifyFunction()
as noted in:
https://llvm.org/PR47712
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94328
Similar to D92129, update VPWidenPHIRecipe to manage the start value as
VPValue. This allows adjusting the start value as a VPlan transform,
which will be used in a follow-up patch to support reductions during
epilogue vectorization.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93975
This was suggested to prepare for D93975.
By moving the start value creation to widenPHInstruction, we set the
stage to manage the start value directly in VPWidenPHIRecipe, which be
used subsequently to set the 'resume' value for reductions during
epilogue vectorization.
It also moves RdxDesc to the recipe, so we do not have to rely on Legal
to look it up later.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94175
As noted in PR48689, the verifier may have some kind
of exponential behavior that should be addressed
separately. For now, only run it in debug mode to
prevent problems for release+asserts.
That limit is what we had before D80401, and I'm
not sure if there was a reason to change it in that
patch.
In the following loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 4] = a[i] + b[i];
}
The loop dependence constrains the VF to a maximum of (4, fixed), which
would mean using <4 x i32> as the vector type in vectorization.
Extending this to scalable vectorization, a VF of (4, scalable) implies
a vector type of <vscale x 4 x i32>. To determine if this is legal
vscale must be taken into account. For this example, unless
max(vscale)=1, it's unsafe to vectorize.
For SVE, the number of bits in an SVE register is architecturally
defined to be a multiple of 128 bits with a maximum of 2048 bits, thus
the maximum vscale is 16. In the loop above it is therefore unfeasible
to vectorize with SVE. However, in this loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(X, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 32] = a[i] + b[i];
}
As long as max(vscale) multiplied by the number of lanes 'X' doesn't
exceed the dependence distance, it is safe to vectorize. For SVE a VF of
(2, scalable) is within this constraint, since a vector of <16 x 2 x 32>
will have no dependencies between lanes. For any number of lanes larger
than this it would be unsafe to vectorize.
This patch extends 'computeFeasibleMaxVF' to legalize scalable VFs
specified as loop hints, implementing the following behaviour:
* If the backend does not support scalable vectors, ignore the hint.
* If scalable vectorization is unfeasible given the loop
dependence, like in the first example above for SVE, then use a
fixed VF.
* Accept scalable VFs if it's safe to do so.
* Otherwise, clamp scalable VFs that exceed the maximum safe VF.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91718
Florian Hahn