We would like to start pushing -mcpu=generic towards enabling the set of
features that improves performance for some CPUs, without hurting any
others. A blend of the performance options hopefully beneficial to all
CPUs. The largest part of that is enabling in-order scheduling using the
Cortex-A55 schedule model. This is similar to the Arm backend change
from eecb353d0e25ba which made -mcpu=generic perform in-order scheduling
using the cortex-a8 schedule model.
The idea is that in-order cpu's require the most help in instruction
scheduling, whereas out-of-order cpus can for the most part out-of-order
schedule around different codegen. Our benchmarking suggests that
hypothesis holds. When running on an in-order core this improved
performance by 3.8% geomean on a set of DSP workloads, 2% geomean on
some other embedded benchmark and between 1% and 1.8% on a set of
singlecore and multicore workloads, all running on a Cortex-A55 cluster.
On an out-of-order cpu the results are a lot more noisy but show flat
performance or an improvement. On the set of DSP and embedded
benchmarks, run on a Cortex-A78 there was a very noisy 1% speed
improvement. Using the most detailed results I could find, SPEC2006 runs
on a Neoverse N1 show a small increase in instruction count (+0.127%),
but a decrease in cycle counts (-0.155%, on average). The instruction
count is very low noise, the cycle count is more noisy with a 0.15%
decrease not being significant. SPEC2k17 shows a small decrease (-0.2%)
in instruction count leading to a -0.296% decrease in cycle count. These
results are within noise margins but tend to show a small improvement in
general.
When specifying an Apple target, clang will set "-target-cpu apple-a7"
on the command line, so should not be affected by this change when
running from clang. This also doesn't enable more runtime unrolling like
-mcpu=cortex-a55 does, only changing the schedule used.
A lot of existing tests have updated. This is a summary of the important
differences:
- Most changes are the same instructions in a different order.
- Sometimes this leads to very minor inefficiencies, such as requiring
an extra mov to move variables into r0/v0 for the return value of a test
function.
- misched-fusion.ll was no longer fusing the pairs of instructions it
should, as per D110561. I've changed the schedule used in the test
for now.
- neon-mla-mls.ll now uses "mul; sub" as opposed to "neg; mla" due to
the different latencies. This seems fine to me.
- Some SVE tests do not always remove movprfx where they did before due
to different register allocation giving different destructive forms.
- The tests argument-blocks-array-of-struct.ll and arm64-windows-calls.ll
produce two LDR where they previously produced an LDP due to
store-pair-suppress kicking in.
- arm64-ldp.ll and arm64-neon-copy.ll are missing pre/postinc on LPD.
- Some tests such as arm64-neon-mul-div.ll and
ragreedy-local-interval-cost.ll have more, less or just different
spilling.
- In aarch64_generated_funcs.ll.generated.expected one part of the
function is no longer outlined. Interestingly if I switch this to use
any other scheduled even less is outlined.
Some of these are expected to happen, such as differences in outlining
or register spilling. There will be places where these result in worse
codegen, places where they are better, with the SPEC instruction counts
suggesting it is not a decrease overall, on average.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110830
The initial attempt (rG89633320) botched the logic by reversing
the source/dest types. Added x86 tests for additional coverage.
The vector tests show a potential improvement (fold vector load
instead of broadcasting), but that's a known/existing problem.
This fold is done in IR by instcombine, and we have a special
form of it already here in DAGCombiner, but we want the more
general transform too:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3jZm
Name: general
Pre: (C1 + zext(C2) < 64)
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%a = and i64 %s2, zext((1 << (16 - C2)) - 1)
%r = trunc %a to i16
Name: special
Pre: C1 == 48
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%r = trunc %s2 to i16
...because D58017 exposes a regression without this fold.
This fold is done in IR by instcombine, and we have a special
form of it already here in DAGCombiner, but we want the more
general transform too:
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/3jZm
Name: general
Pre: (C1 + zext(C2) < 64)
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%a = and i64 %s2, zext((1 << (16 - C2)) - 1)
%r = trunc %a to i16
Name: special
Pre: C1 == 48
%s = lshr i64 %x, C1
%t = trunc i64 %s to i16
%r = lshr i16 %t, C2
=>
%s2 = lshr i64 %x, C1 + zext(C2)
%r = trunc %s2 to i16
...because D58017 exposes a regression without this fold.
Summary:
This *might* be the last fold for `sink-addsub-of-const.ll`, but i'm not sure yet.
As far as i can tell, there are no regressions here (ignoring x86-32),
all changes are either good or neutral.
This, almost surprisingly to me, fixes the motivational tests (in `shift-amount-mod.ll`)
`@reg32_lshr_by_sub_from_negated` from [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41952 | PR41952 ]].
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/vMd3
Reviewers: RKSimon, t.p.northover, craig.topper, spatel, efriedma
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: sdardis, javed.absar, arichardson, kristof.beyls, jrtc27, atanasyan, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62774
llvm-svn: 362488
Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361852, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs, and then reverted in
rL362109 to fix missing constant folds that were causing
endless combine loops.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 362143
Summary:
The main motivation is shown by all these `neg` instructions that are now created.
In particular, the `@reg32_lshr_by_negated_unfolded_sub_b` test.
AArch64 test changes all look good (`neg` created), or neutral.
X86 changes look neutral (vectors), or good (`neg` / `xor eax, eax` created).
I'm not sure about `X86/ragreedy-hoist-spill.ll`, it looks like the spill
is now hoisted into preheader (which should still be good?),
2 4-byte reloads become 1 8-byte reload, and are elsewhere,
but i'm not sure how that affects that loop.
I'm unable to interpret AMDGPU change, looks neutral-ish?
This is hopefully a step towards solving [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41952 | PR41952 ]].
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pkdq (we are missing more patterns, i'll submit them later)
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361852, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs, and then reverted in
rL362109 to fix missing constant folds that were causing
endless combine loops.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel, arsenm
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: bjope, qcolombet, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, javed.absar, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62223
llvm-svn: 362142
I was looking into an endless combine loop the uncommitted follow-up patch
was causing, and it appears even these patches can exibit such an
endless loop. The root cause is that we try to hoist one binop (add/sub) with
constant operand, and if we get two such binops both of which are
eligible for this hoisting, we get stuck.
Some cases may highlight missing constant-folds.
Reverts r361871,r361872,r361873,r361874.
llvm-svn: 362109
Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361853, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs.
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 361872
Summary:
The main motivation is shown by all these `neg` instructions that are now created.
In particular, the `@reg32_lshr_by_negated_unfolded_sub_b` test.
AArch64 test changes all look good (`neg` created), or neutral.
X86 changes look neutral (vectors), or good (`neg` / `xor eax, eax` created).
I'm not sure about `X86/ragreedy-hoist-spill.ll`, it looks like the spill
is now hoisted into preheader (which should still be good?),
2 4-byte reloads become 1 8-byte reload, and are elsewhere,
but i'm not sure how that affects that loop.
I'm unable to interpret AMDGPU change, looks neutral-ish?
This is hopefully a step towards solving [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41952 | PR41952 ]].
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pkdq (we are missing more patterns, i'll submit them later)
This is a recommit, originally committed in rL361852, but reverted
to investigate test-suite compile-time hangs.
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel, arsenm
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: bjope, qcolombet, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, javed.absar, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62223
llvm-svn: 361871
Summary:
Direct sibling of D62223 patch.
While i don't have a direct motivational pattern for this,
it would seem to make sense to handle both patterns (or none),
for symmetry?
The aarch64 changes look neutral;
sparc and systemz look like improvement (one less instruction each);
x86 changes - 32bit case improves, 64bit case shows that LEA no longer
gets constructed, which may be because that whole test is `-mattr=+slow-lea,+slow-3ops-lea`
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/ffh
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, spatel, t.p.northover
Reviewed By: t.p.northover
Subscribers: t.p.northover, jyknight, javed.absar, kristof.beyls, fedor.sergeev, jrtc27, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62252
llvm-svn: 361853
Summary:
The main motivation is shown by all these `neg` instructions that are now created.
In particular, the `@reg32_lshr_by_negated_unfolded_sub_b` test.
AArch64 test changes all look good (`neg` created), or neutral.
X86 changes look neutral (vectors), or good (`neg` / `xor eax, eax` created).
I'm not sure about `X86/ragreedy-hoist-spill.ll`, it looks like the spill
is now hoisted into preheader (which should still be good?),
2 4-byte reloads become 1 8-byte reload, and are elsewhere,
but i'm not sure how that affects that loop.
I'm unable to interpret AMDGPU change, looks neutral-ish?
This is hopefully a step towards solving [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41952 | PR41952 ]].
https://rise4fun.com/Alive/pkdq (we are missing more patterns, i'll submit them later)
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, spatel, arsenm
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: bjope, qcolombet, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, nhaehnle, yaxunl, javed.absar, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, kristof.beyls, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D62223
llvm-svn: 361852
Meaning if we were to produce 'neg' in dagcombine, we will get an
endless cycle; some inverse transform would need to be guarded somehow.
Also, the 'and (sub 0, x), 31' variant is sticky,
doesn't get optimized in any way.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41952
llvm-svn: 361254
