Previously we would use a bundle to hint the register allocator to not
overwrite the pointers in a sequence of loads to avoid breaking soft
clauses. This bundling was based on a fuzzy register pressure
heuristic, so we could not guarantee using more registers than are
really available. This would result in register allocator failing on
unsatisfiable bundles. Use a kill to artificially extend the live
ranges, so we can always succeed at register allocation even if it
means extra spills in the worst case.
This seems to capture most of the benefit of the bundle while avoiding
most of the risk presented by the bundle. However the lit tests do
show a handful of regressions. In some cases with sequences of
volatile loads, unused load components end up getting reallocated to
the next load which forces a wait between. There are also a few small
scheduling regressions where a hazard used to be avoided, and one
spill torture test which for some reason nearly doubles the stack
usage. There is also a bit of noise from leftover kills (it may make
sense for post-RA pseudos to strip all of these out).
Fixes a testcase that was overcommitting large register tuples to a
bundle, which the register allocator could not possibly satisfy. This
was producing a bundle which used nearly all of the available SGPRs
with a series of 16-dword loads (not all of which are freely available
to use).
This is a quick hack for some deeper issues with how the clause
bundler tracks register pressure.
Overall the pressure tracking used here doesn't make sense and is too
imprecise for what it needs to avoid the allocator failing. The
pressure estimate does not account for the alignment requirements of
large SGPR tuples, so this was really underestimating the pressure
impact. This also ignores the impact of the extended live range of the
use registers after the bundle is introduced. Additionally, it didn't
account for some wide tuples not being available due to reserved
registers.
This regresses a few cases. These end up introducing more
spilling. This is also a function of the global pressure being used in
the decision to bundle, not the local pressure impact of the bundle
itself.
Support for XNACK and SRAMECC is not static on some GPUs. We must be able
to differentiate between different scenarios for these dynamic subtarget
features.
The possible settings are:
- Unsupported: The GPU has no support for XNACK/SRAMECC.
- Any: Preference is unspecified. Use conservative settings that can run anywhere.
- Off: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC Off
- On: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC On
GCNSubtarget will track the four options based on the following criteria. If
the subtarget does not support XNACK/SRAMECC we say the setting is
"Unsupported". If no subtarget features for XNACK/SRAMECC are requested we
must support "Any" mode. If the subtarget features XNACK/SRAMECC exist in the
feature string when initializing the subtarget, the settings are "On/Off".
The defaults are updated to be conservatively correct, meaning if no setting
for XNACK or SRAMECC is explicitly requested, defaults will be used which
generate code that can be run anywhere. This corresponds to the "Any" setting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85882
Allow parsing generated mir with custom pseudo source value tokens.
Also rename pseudo source values to have more meaningful names.
Relands ba7dcd8542ab, which had memory leaks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95215
Allow parsing generated mir with custom pseudo source value tokens.
Also rename pseudo source values to have more meaningful names.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94768
Following on from D87757 "[SplitKit] Only copy live lanes", in
SplitEditor::addDeadDef, when we're checking whether the parent live
interval has a subrange defining the same lanes, tolerate the case
where the parent subrange defines a superset of the lanes. This can
happen when the child subrange comes from SplitEditor::buildCopy
decomposing a partial copy into a sequence of subreg copies that cover
the required lanes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88020
