The concept of a 'program point' in the original data flow framework is
ambiguous. It can refer to either an operation or a block itself. This
representation has different interpretations in forward and backward
data-flow analysis. In forward data-flow analysis, the program point of
an operation represents the state after the operation, while in backward
data flow analysis, it represents the state before the operation. When
using forward or backward data-flow analysis, it is crucial to carefully
handle this distinction to ensure correctness.
This patch refactors the definition of program point, unifying the
interpretation of program points in both forward and backward data-flow
analysis.
How to integrate this patch?
For dense forward data-flow analysis and other analysis (except dense
backward data-flow analysis), the program point corresponding to the
original operation can be obtained by `getProgramPointAfter(op)`, and
the program point corresponding to the original block can be obtained by
`getProgramPointBefore(block)`.
For dense backward data-flow analysis, the program point corresponding
to the original operation can be obtained by
`getProgramPointBefore(op)`, and the program point corresponding to the
original block can be obtained by `getProgramPointAfter(block)`.
NOTE: If you need to get the lattice of other data-flow analyses in
dense backward data-flow analysis, you should still use the dense
forward data-flow approach. For example, to get the Executable state of
a block in dense backward data-flow analysis and add the dependency of
the current operation, you should write:
``getOrCreateFor<Executable>(getProgramPointBefore(op),
getProgramPointBefore(block))``
In case above, we use getProgramPointBefore(op) because the analysis we
rely on is dense backward data-flow, and we use
getProgramPointBefore(block) because the lattice we query is the result
of a non-dense backward data flow computation.
related dsscussion:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-the-semantics-of-program-points/80671/8
corresponding PSA:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/psa-program-point-semantics-change/81479
Allow customization of the `resolveCallable` method in the
`CallOpInterface`. This change allows for operations implementing this
interface to provide their own logic for resolving callables.
- Introduce the `resolveCallable` method, which does not include the
optional symbol table parameter. This method replaces the previously
existing extra class declaration `resolveCallable`.
- Introduce the `resolveCallableInTable` method, which incorporates the
symbol table parameter. This method replaces the previous extra class
declaration `resolveCallable` that used the optional symbol table
parameter.
This patch distinguishes between program points and lattice anchors in
data flow analysis, where lattice anchors represent locations where a
lattice can be attached, while program points denote points in program
execution.
Related discussions:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-unify-the-semantics-of-program-points/80671/8
Base `DataFlowAnalysis::visit` returns `LogicalResult`, but wrappers's
Sparse/Dense/Forward/Backward `visitOperation` doesn't.
Sometimes it's needed to abort solver early if some unrecoverable
condition detected inside analysis.
Update `visitOperation` to return `LogicalResult` and propagate it to
`solver.initializeAndRun()`. Only `visitOperation` is updated for now,
it's possible to update other hooks like `visitNonControlFlowArguments`,
bit it's not needed immediately and let's keep this PR small.
Hijacked `UnderlyingValueAnalysis` test analysis to test it.
The dataflow analysis framework within MLIR allows to customize the
transfer function when a `call-like` operation is encuntered.
The check to see if the analysis was executed in intraprocedural mode
was executed after the check to see if the callee had the
CallableOpInterface, and thus intraprocedural analyses would behave as
interpocedural ones when performing indirect calls.
This commit fixes the issue by performing the check for
intraprocedurality first.
Dense forward analyses were already behaving correctly.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/mlir/lib/Analysis/DataFlow/DenseAnalysis.cpp#L63
Co-authored-by: massimo <mo.fioravanti@gmail.com>
The core implementation of the dataflow anlysis framework is
interpocedural by design. While this offers better analysis precision,
it also comes with additional cost as it takes longer for the analysis
to reach the fixpoint state. Add a configuration mechanism to the
dataflow solver to control whether it operates inteprocedurally or not
to offer clients a choice.
As a positive side effect, this change also adds hooks for explicitly
processing external/opaque function calls in the dataflow analyses,
e.g., based off of attributes present in the the function declaration or
call operation such as alias scopes and modref available in the LLVM
dialect.
This change should not affect existing analyses and the default solver
configuration remains interprocedural.
Co-authored-by: Jacob Peng <jacobmpeng@gmail.com>
The current implementation is not very ergonomic or descriptive: It uses `std::optional<unsigned>` where `std::nullopt` represents the parent op and `unsigned` is the region number.
This doesn't give us any useful methods specific to region control flow and makes the code fragile to changes due to now taking the region number into account.
This patch introduces a new type called `RegionBranchPoint`, replacing all uses of `std::optional<unsigned>` in the interface. It can be implicitly constructed from a region or a `RegionSuccessor`, can be compared with a region to check whether the branch point is branching from the parent, adds `isParent` to check whether we are coming from a parent op and adds `RegionSuccessor::parent` as a descriptive way to indicate branching from the parent.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D159116
This implication was already done de-facto and there were plenty of users and wrapper functions specifically used to handle the "return-like or RegionBranchTerminatorOpInterface" case. These simply existed due to up until recently missing features in ODS.
With the new capabilities of traits, we can make `ReturnLike` imply `RegionBranchTerminatorOpInterface` and auto generate proper definitions for its methods.
Various occurrences and wrapper methods used for `isa<RegionBranchTerminatorOpInterface>() || hasTrait<ReturnLike>()` have all been removed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D157402
Initial implementations of dense dataflow analyses feature special cases
for operations that have region- or call-based control flow by
leveraging the corresponding interfaces. This is not necessarily
sufficient as these operations may influence the dataflow state by
themselves as well we through the control flow. For example,
`linalg.generic` and similar operations have region-based control flow
and their proper memory effects, so any memory-related analyses such as
last-writer require processing `linalg.generic` directly instead of, or
in addition to, the region-based flow.
Provide hooks to customize the processing of operations with region-
cand call-based contol flow in forward and backward dense dataflow
analysis. These hooks are trigerred when control flow is transferred
between the "main" operation, i.e. the call or the region owner, and
another region. Such an apporach allows the analyses to update the
lattice before and/or after the regions. In the `linalg.generic`
example, the reads from memory are interpreted as happening before the
body region and the writes to memory are interpreted as happening after
the body region. Using these hooks in generic analysis may require
introducing additional interfaces, but for now assume that the specific
analysis have spceial cases for the (rare) operaitons with call- and
region-based control flow that need additional processing.
Reviewed By: Mogball, phisiart
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D155757
This is the counterpart to the forward dense dataflow analysis and
integrates into the dataflow framework. The implementation follows the
structure of existing dataflow analyses.
Reviewed By: Mogball, phisiart
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D154713
The MLIR classes Type/Attribute/Operation/Op/Value support
cast/dyn_cast/isa/dyn_cast_or_null functionality through llvm's doCast
functionality in addition to defining methods with the same name.
This change begins the migration of uses of the method to the
corresponding function call as has been decided as more consistent.
Note that there still exist classes that only define methods directly,
such as AffineExpr, and this does not include work currently to support
a functional cast/isa call.
Context:
- https://mlir.llvm.org/deprecation/ at "Use the free function variants
for dyn_cast/cast/isa/…"
- Original discussion at https://discourse.llvm.org/t/preferred-casting-style-going-forward/68443
Implementation:
This patch updates all remaining uses of the deprecated functionality in
mlir/. This was done with clang-tidy as described below and further
modifications to GPUBase.td and OpenMPOpsInterfaces.td.
Steps are described per line, as comments are removed by git:
0. Retrieve the change from the following to build clang-tidy with an
additional check:
main...tpopp:llvm-project:tidy-cast-check
1. Build clang-tidy
2. Run clang-tidy over your entire codebase while disabling all checks
and enabling the one relevant one. Run on all header files also.
3. Delete .inc files that were also modified, so the next build rebuilds
them to a pure state.
```
ninja -C $BUILD_DIR clang-tidy
run-clang-tidy -clang-tidy-binary=$BUILD_DIR/bin/clang-tidy -checks='-*,misc-cast-functions'\
-header-filter=mlir/ mlir/* -fix
rm -rf $BUILD_DIR/tools/mlir/**/*.inc
```
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151542
AbstractDenseDataFlowAnalysis::visitOperation controls how the dataflow
analysis proceeds around control flow. In particular, conservative
assumptions are made about call operations which can prevent some
analysis from succeeding.
The motivating case for this change is https://reviews.llvm.org/D140415,
for which it is correct and necessary for the lattice to be preserved
after call operations.
Some renaming was necessary to avoid confusion with
DenseDataFlowAnalysis::visitOperation.
AbstractDenseDataFlowAnalysis::visitRegionBranchOperation and
DenseDataFlowAnalysis::visitOperationImpl are also made protected
to allow implementation of AbstractDenseDataFlowAnalysis::visitOperation,
although I did not need these to be virtual.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D140879
Currently, for sparse analyses, we always store a `Optional<ValueT>` in each lattice element. When it's `None`, we consider the lattice element as `uninitialized`.
However:
* Not all lattices have an `uninitialized` state. For example, `Executable` and `PredecessorState` have default values so they are always initialized.
* In dense analyses, we don't have the concept of an `uninitialized` state.
Given these inconsistencies, this patch removes `Lattice::isUninitialized()`. Individual analysis states are now default-constructed. If the default state of an analysis can be considered as "uninitialized" then this analysis should implement the following logic:
* Special join rule: `join(uninitialized, any) == any`.
* Special bail out logic: if any of the input states is uninitialized, exit the transfer function early.
Depends On D132086
Reviewed By: Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132800
### Rationale
For a program point where we cannot reason about incoming dataflow (e.g. an argument of an entry block), the framework needs to initialize the state.
Currently, `AbstractSparseDataFlowAnalysis` initializes such state to the "pessimistic fixpoint", and `AbstractDenseDataFlowAnalysis` calls the state's `reset()` function.
However, entry states aren't necessarily the pessimistic fixpoint. Example: in reaching definition, the pessimistic fixpoint is `{all definitions}`, but the entry state is `{}`.
This awkwardness might be why the dense analysis API currently uses `reset()` instead of `markPessimisticFixpoint()`.
This patch consolidates entry point initialization into a single function `setToEntryState()`.
### API Location
Note that `setToEntryState()` is defined in the analysis rather than the lattice, so that we allow different analyses to use the same lattice but different entry states.
### Removal of the concept of optimistic/known value
The concept of optimistic/known value is too specific to SCCP.
Furthermore, the known value is not really used: In the current SCCP implementation, the known value (pessimistic fixpoint) is always `Attribute{}` (non-constant). This means there's no point storing a `knownValue` in each state.
If we do need to re-introduce optimistic/known value, we should put it in the SCCP analysis, not the sparse analysis API.
### Terminology
Please let me know if "entry state" is a good terminology.
I chose "entry" from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-flow_analysis#Basic_principles).
Another term I can think of is "boundary" (https://suif.stanford.edu/~courses/cs243/lectures/L3-DFA2-revised.pdf) which might be better since it also makes sense for backward analysis.
Reviewed By: Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132086
Currently, in the MLIR `{Sparse,Dense}DataFlowAnalysis` API, there is a small optimization:
Before running a transfer function, if the "out state" is already at the pessimistic fixpoint (bottom lattice value), then we know that it cannot possibly be changed, therefore we can skip the transfer function.
I benchmarked and found that this optimization is ineffective, so we can remove it and simplify `{Sparse,Dense}DataFlowAnalysis`. In a subsequent patch, I plan to change/remove the concept of the pessimistic fixpoint so that the API is further simplified.
Benchmark: I ran the following tests 5 times (after 3 warmup runs), and timed the `initializeAndRun()` function.
| Test | Before (us) | After (us) |
| mlir-opt -test-dead-code-analysis mlir/test/Analysis/DataFlow/test-dead-code-analysis.mlir | 181.2536 | 187.7074 |
| mlir-opt -- -test-dead-code-analysis mlir/test/Analysis/DataFlow/test-last-modified-callgraph.mlir | 109.5504 | 105.0654 |
| mlir-opt -- -test-dead-code-analysis mlir/test/Analysis/DataFlow/test-last-modified.mlir | 333.3646 | 322.4224 |
| mlir-opt -- -allow-unregistered-dialect -sccp mlir/test/Analysis/DataFlow/test-combined-sccp.mlir | 1027.1492 | 1081.818 |
Note: `test-combined-sccp.mlir` is crafted by combining `mlir/test/Transforms/sccp.mlir`, `mlir/test/Transforms/sccp-structured.mlir` and `mlir/test/Transforms/sccp-callgraph.mlir`.
Reviewed By: aartbik, Mogball
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131660
This patch introduces an implementation of dense data-flow analysis. Dense
data-flow analysis attaches a lattice before and after the execution of every
operation. The lattice state is propagated across operations by a user-defined
transfer function. The state is joined across control-flow and callgraph edges.
Thge patch provides an example pass that uses both a dense and a sparse analysis
together.
Depends on D127139
Reviewed By: rriddle, phisiart
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127173
