VBMI introduced VPERMB, so cost-model i8 replication shuffle using it.
Note that we can still model i8 replication shufflle without VBMI,
by promoting to i16/i32. That will be done in follow-ups.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113479
BWI introduced VPERMW, so cost-model i16 replication shuffle using it.
Note that we can still model i16 replication shufflle without BWI,
by promoting to i32. That will be done in follow-ups.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113478
This models lowering to `vpermd`/`vpermq`/`vpermps`/`vpermpd`,
that take a single input vector and a single index vector,
and are cross-lane. So far i haven't seen evidence that
replication ever results in demanding more than a single
input vector per output vector.
This results in *shockingly* lesser costs :)
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113350
When accumulating the GEP offset in BasicAA, we should use the
pointer index size rather than the pointer size.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112370
This finally creates proper test coverage for replication shuffles,
that are used by LV for conditional loads, and will allow to add
proper costmodel at least for AVX512.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113324
The basic idea here is that given a zero extended narrow IV, we can prove the inner IV to be NUW if we can prove there's a value the inner IV must take before overflow which must exit the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109457
Even though AVX512's masked mem ops (unlike AVX1/2) have a mask
that is a `VF x i1`, replication of said masks happens after
promotion of it to `VF x i8`, so we should use `i8`, not `i1`,
when calculating the cost of mask replication.
I don't really buy that masked interleaved memory loads/stores are supported on X86.
There is zero costmodel test coverage, no actual cost modelling for the generation
of the mask repetition, and basically only two LV tests.
Additionally, i'm not very interested in AVX512.
I don't know if this really helps "soft" block over at
https://reviews.llvm.org/D111460#inline-1075467,
but i think it can't make things worse at least.
When we are being told that there is a masking, instead of
completely giving up and falling back to
fully scalarizing `BasicTTIImplBase::getInterleavedMemoryOpCost()`,
let's correctly query the cost of masked memory ops,
keep all the pretty shuffle cost modelling,
but scalarize the cost computation for the mask replication.
I think, not scalarizing the shuffles themselves
may adjust the computed costs a bit,
and maybe hopefully just enough to hide the "regressions"
at https://reviews.llvm.org/D111460#inline-1075467
I do mean hide, because the test coverage is non-existent.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112873
As it can be seen in `InnerLoopVectorizer::vectorizeInterleaveGroup()`,
in some cases (reported by `UseMaskForGaps`), the gaps in the interleaved load/store group
will be masked away by another constant mask, so there is no need to
account for the cost of replication of the mask for these.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112877
Copied from llvm/test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/X86/x86-interleaved-accesses-masked-group.ll
As discussed in D111460 / D112877 / D112873 we have basically no test coverage
for this part of cost model.
If we know that the var * scale multiplication is nsw, we can use
a saturating multiplication on the range (as a good approximation
of an nsw multiply). This recovers some cases where the fix from
D112611 is unnecessarily strict. (This can be further strengthened
by using a saturating add, but we currently don't track all the
necessary information for that.)
This exposes an issue in our NSW tracking for multiplies. The code
was assuming that (X +nsw Y) *nsw Z results in
(X *nsw Z) +nsw (Y *nsw Z) -- however, it is possible that the
distributed multiplications overflow, even if the non-distributed
one does not. We should discard the nsw flag if the the offset is
non-zero. If we just have (X *nsw Y) *nsw Z then concluding
X *nsw (Y *nsw Z) is fine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112848
blockaddresses do not participate in the call graph since the only
instructions that use them must all return to someplace within the
current function. And passes cannot retrieve a function address from a
blockaddress.
This was suggested by efriedma in D58260.
Fixes PR50881.
Reviewed By: nickdesaulniers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112178
The scale multiplication is only guaranteed to be nsw if the GEP
is inbounds (or the multiplication is trivial). Previously we were
only considering explicit muls in GEP indices.
BasicAA currently tries to determine that the offset is positive by
checking whether all variable indices are positive based on known
bits, multiplied by a positive scale. However, this is incorrect
if the scale multiplication might overflow. In the modified test
case the original value is positive, but may be negative after a
left shift.
Fix this by converting known bits into a constant range and reusing
the range-based logic, which handles overflow correctly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112611
Make the range check more precise by calculating the range of
potentially accessed bytes for both accesses and checking whether
their intersection is empty. In that case there can be no overlap
between the accesses and the result is NoAlias.
This is more powerful than the previous approach, because it can
deal with sign-wrapped ranges. In the test case the original range
is [-1, INT_MAX] but becomes [0, INT_MIN] after applying the offset.
This is a wrapping range, so getSignedMin/getSignedMax will treat
it as a full range. However, the range excludes the elements
[INT_MIN+1, -1], which is enough to prove NoAlias with an access
at offset -1.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112486
D109746 made BasicAA use range information to determine the
minimum/maximum GEP offset. However, it was limited to the case of
a single variable index. This patch extends support to multiple
indices by adding all the ranges together.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112378
GEP indices larger than the GEP index size are implicitly truncated
to the index size. BasicAA currently doesn't model this, resulting
in incorrect alias analysis results.
Fix this by explicitly modelling truncation in CastedValue in the
same way we do zext and sext. Additionally we need to disable a
number of optimizations for truncated values, in particular
"non-zero" and "non-equal" may no longer hold after truncation.
I believe the constant offset heuristic is also not necessarily
correct for truncated values, but wasn't able to come up with a
test for that one.
A possible followup here would be to use the new mechanism to
model explicit trunc as well (which should be much more common,
as it is the canonical form). This is straightforward, but omitted
here to separate the correctness fix from the analysis improvement.
(Side note: While I say "index size" above, BasicAA currently uses
the pointer size instead. Something for another day...)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110977
By definition, interleaving load of stride N means:
load N*VF elements, and shuffle them into N VF-sized vectors,
with 0'th vector containing elements `[0, VF)*stride + 0`,
and 1'th vector containing elements `[0, VF)*stride + 1`.
Example: https://godbolt.org/z/df561Me5E (i64 stride 4 vf 2 => cost 6)
Now, not fully interleaved load, is when not all of these vectors is demanded.
So at worst, we could just pretend that everything is demanded,
and discard the non-demanded vectors. What this means is that the cost
for not-fully-interleaved group should be not greater than the cost
for the same fully-interleaved group, but perhaps somewhat less.
Examples:
https://godbolt.org/z/a78dK5Geq (i64 stride 4 (indices 012u) vf 2 => cost 4)
https://godbolt.org/z/G91ceo8dM (i64 stride 4 (indices 01uu) vf 2 => cost 2)
https://godbolt.org/z/5joYob9rx (i64 stride 4 (indices 0uuu) vf 2 => cost 1)
Right now, for such not-fully-interleaved loads we just use the costs
for fully-interleaved loads. But at least **in general**,
that is obviously overly pessimistic, because **in general**,
not all the shuffles needed to perform the full interleaving
will end up being live.
So what this does, is naively scales the interleaving cost
by the fraction of the live members. I believe this should still result
in the right ballpark cost estimate, although it may be over/under -estimate.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112307
This patch introduces a new function:
AArch64Subtarget::getVScaleForTuning
that returns a value for vscale that can be used for tuning the cost
model when using scalable vectors. The VScaleForTuning option in
AArch64Subtarget is initialised according to the following rules:
1. If the user has specified the CPU to tune for we use that, else
2. If the target CPU was specified we use that, else
3. The tuning is set to "generic".
For CPUs of type "generic" I have assumed that vscale=2.
New tests added here:
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/sve-gather.ll
Analysis/CostModel/AArch64/sve-scatter.ll
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-strict-fadd-cost.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110259
As seen in PR51869 the ScalarEvolution::isImpliedCond function might
end up spending lots of time when doing the isKnownPredicate checks.
Calling isKnownPredicate for example result in isKnownViaInduction
being called, which might result in isLoopBackedgeGuardedByCond being
called, and then we might get one or more new calls to isImpliedCond.
Even if the scenario described here isn't an infinite loop, using
some random generated C programs as input indicates that those
isKnownPredicate checks quite often returns true. On the other hand,
the third condition that needs to be fulfilled in order to "prove
implications via truncation", i.e. the isImpliedCondBalancedTypes
check, is rarely fulfilled.
I also made some similar experiments to look at how often we would
get the same result when using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning instead
of isKnownPredicate. So far I haven't seen a single case when codegen
is negatively impacted by using isKnownViaNonRecursiveReasoning. On
the other hand, it seems like we get rid of the compile time explosion
seen in PR51869 that way. Hence this patch.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D112080
A few more tuples are being queried after D111546. Might be good to model them,
They all require a lot of manual assembly surgery.
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/9bnKrefcG - for intels `Block RThroughput: =40.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =16.0`
So could pick cost of `40`
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/5s3s14dEY - for intels `Block RThroughput: =40.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: =16.0`
So we could pick cost of `40`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111945
A few more tuples are being queried after D111546. Might be good to model them,
They all require a lot of manual assembly surgery.
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/MTaKboejM - for intels `Block RThroughput: =32.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=16.0`
So could pick cost of `32`
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/v7xPj3Wd4 - for intels `Block RThroughput: =32.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=32.0`
So we could pick cost of `32`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111944
A few more tuples are being queried after D111546. Might be good to model them,
They all require a lot of manual assembly surgery.
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/11rcvdreP - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=68.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=48.0`
So could pick cost of `68`
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/6aM11fWcP - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=64.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=32.0`
So we could pick cost of `64`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111943
A few more tuples are being queried after D111546. Might be good to model them,
They all require a lot of manual assembly surgery.
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/s5b6E6jsP - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=32.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=24.0`
So could pick cost of `32`
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/efh99d93b - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=48.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=32.0`
So we could pick cost of `48`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111942
A few more tuples are being queried after D111546. Might be good to model them,
They all require a lot of manual assembly surgery.
The only sched models that for cpu's that support avx2
but not avx512 are: haswell, broadwell, skylake, zen1-3
For load we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/YTeT9M7fW - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=212.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=64.0`
So could pick cost of `212`
For store we have:
https://godbolt.org/z/vc954KEGP - for intels `Block RThroughput: <=90.0`; for ryzens, `Block RThroughput: <=24.0`
So we could pick cost of `90`.
I'm directly using the shuffling asm the llc produced,
without any manual fixups that may be needed
to ensure sequential execution.
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111940
Florian Hahn