Previously when combining two loads this pass would sink the
first one down to the second one, putting the combined load
where the second one was. It would also sink any intervening
instructions which depended on the first load down to just
after the combined load.
For example, if we started with this sequence of
instructions (code flowing from left to right):
X A B C D E F Y
After combining loads X and Y into XY we might end up with:
A B C D E F XY
But if B D and F depended on X, we would get:
A C E XY B D F
Now if the original code had some short disjoint live ranges
from A to B, C to D and E to F, in the transformed code
these live ranges will be long and overlapping. In this way
a single merge of two loads could cause an unbounded
increase in register pressure.
To fix this, change the way the way that loads are moved in
order to merge them so that:
- The second load is moved up to the first one. (But when
merging stores, we still move the first store down to the
second one.)
- Intervening instructions are never moved.
- Instead, if we find an intervening instruction that would
need to be moved, give up on the merge. But this case
should now be pretty rare because normal stores have no
outputs, and normal loads only have address register
inputs, but these will be identical for any pair of loads
that we try to merge.
As well as fixing the unbounded register pressure increase
problem, moving loads up and stores down seems like it
should usually be a win for memory latency reasons.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119006
Swizzled accesses are not merged, but there is no particular reason not
to merge two instructions if any of the intervening instructions happens
to be a swizzled access.
This moves the check for swizzled accesses out of checkAndPrepareMerge
into collectMergeableInsts where I think it makes more sense.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118267
This will currently accept the old number of bytes syntax, and convert
it to a scalar. This should be removed in the near future (I think I
converted all of the tests already, but likely missed a few).
Not sure what the exact syntax and policy should be. We can continue
printing the number of bytes for non-generic instructions to avoid
test churn and only allow non-scalar types for generic instructions.
This will currently print the LLT in parentheses, but accept parsing
the existing integers and implicitly converting to scalar. The
parentheses are a bit ugly, but the parser logic seems unable to deal
without either parentheses or some keyword to indicate the start of a
type.
Replace individual operands GLC, SLC, and DLC with a single cache_policy
bitmask operand. This will reduce the number of operands in MIR and I hope
the amount of code. These operands are mostly 0 anyway.
Additional advantage that parser will accept these flags in any order unlike
now.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96469
Summary:
This improves merging of sequences like:
store a, ptr + 4
store b, ptr + 8
store c, ptr + 12
store d, ptr + 16
store e, ptr + 20
store f, ptr
Prior to this patch the basic block was scanned in order to find instructions
to merge and the above sequence would be transformed to:
store4 <a, b, c, d>, ptr + 4
store e, ptr + 20
store r, ptr
With this change, we now sort all the candidate merge instructions by their offset,
so instructions are visited in offset order rather than in the order they appear
in the basic block. We now transform this sequnce into:
store4 <f, a, b, c>, ptr
store2 <d, e>, ptr + 16
Another benefit of this change is that since we have sorted the mergeable lists
by offset, we can easily check if an instruction is mergeable by checking the
offset of the instruction that becomes before or after it in the sorted list.
Once we determine an instruction is not mergeable we can remove it from the list
and avoid having to do the more expensive mergeablilty checks.
Reviewers: arsenm, pendingchaos, rampitec, nhaehnle, vpykhtin
Reviewed By: arsenm, nhaehnle
Subscribers: kerbowa, merge_guards_bot, kzhuravl, jvesely, wdng, yaxunl, dstuttard, tpr, t-tye, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65966
