If the incoming previous value of a fixed-order recurrence is a phi in
the header, go through incoming values from the latch until we find a
non-phi value. Use this as the new Previous, all uses in the header
will be dominated by the original phi, but need to be moved after
the non-phi previous value.
At the moment, fixed-order recurrences are modeled as a chain of
first-order recurrences.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119661
This change reorganizes the code and comments to make the expected semantics of these routines more clear. However, this is *not* an NFC change. The functional change is having isScalarWithPredication return false if the instruction does not need predicated. Specifically, for the case of a uniform memory operation we were previously considering it *not* to be a predicated instruction, but *were* considering it to be scalable with predication.
As can be seen with the test changes, this causes uniform memory ops which should have been lowered as uniform-per-parts values to instead be lowering via naive scalarization or if scalarization is infeasible (i.e. scalable vectors) aborted entirely. I also don't trust the code to bail out correctly 100% of the time, so it's possible we had a crash or miscompile from trying to scalarize something which isn't scalaralizable. I haven't found a concrete example here, but I am suspicious.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131093
After D121595 was commited, I noticed regressions assosicated with small trip
count numbersvectorisation by tail folding with scalable vectors. As a solution
for those issues I propose to introduce the minimal trip count threshold value.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130755
This is mostly a stylistic change to make the uniform memop widening cost
code fit more naturally with the sourounding code. Its not strictly
speaking NFC as I added in the store with invariant value case, and we
could in theory have a target where a gather/scatter is cheaper than a
single load/store... but it's probably NFC in practice. Note that the
scatter/gather result can still be overriden later if the result is
uniform-by-parts.
This extends the handling of uniform memory operations to handle the case where a store is storing a loop invariant value. Unlike the general case of a store to an invariant address where we must use the last active lane, in this case we can use any lane since all lanes must produce the same result.
For context, the basic structure of the existing code and how the change fits in:
* First, we select a widening strategy. (The result is irrelevant for this patch.)
* Then we determine if a computation is uniform within all lanes of VF. (Note this is the uniform-per-part definition, not LAI's uniform across all unrolled iterations definition.)
* If it is, we overrule the widening strategy, and unconditionally scalarize.
* VPReplicationRecipe - which is what actually does the scalarization - knows how to handle unform-per-part values including for scalable vectors. However, we do need to know that the expression is safe to execute without predication - e.g. the uniform mem op was unconditional in the original loop. (This part was split off and already landed.)
An obvious question is why not simply implement the generic case? The answer is that I'm going to, but doing so without a canonicalization towards uniform causes regressions due to bad interaction with scalarization/uniformity of values feeding the uniform mem-op. This patch is needed to avoid those regressions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130364
If we have interleave groups in the loop we want to vectorise then
we should fall back on normal vectorisation with a scalar epilogue. In
such cases when tail-folding is enabled we'll almost certainly go on to
create vplans with very high costs for all vector VFs and fall back on
VF=1 anyway. This is likely to be worse than if we'd just used an
unpredicated vector loop in the first place.
Once the vectoriser has proper support for analysing all the costs
for each combination of VF and vectorisation style, then we should
be able to remove this.
Added an extra test here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-tail-folding-option.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128342
Now the API getExtendedAddReductionCost is used to determine the cost of extended Add reduction with optional Mul. For Arm, it could cover the cases. But for other target, for example: RISCV, they support other kinds of extended recution, such as FAdd.
This patch does the following changes:
1, Split getExtendedAddReductionCost into 2 new API: getExtendedReductionCost which handles the extended reduction with addtional input of Opcode; getMulAccReductionCost which handle the MLA cases the getExtendedAddReductionCost.
2, Refactor getReductionPatternCost, add some contraint condition to make sure the getMulAccReductionCost should only handle the reuction of Add + Mul.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130868
We already had the reasoning about uniform mem op loads; if the address is accessed at least once, we know the instruction doesn't need predicated to ensure fault safety. For stores, we do need to ensure that the values visible in memory are the same with and without predication. The easiest sub-case to check for is that all the values being stored are the same. Since we know that at least one lane is active, this tells us that the value must be visible.
Warning on confusing terminology: "uniform" vs "uniform mem op" mean two different things here, and this patch is specific to the later. It would *not* be legal to make this same change for merely "uniform" operations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130637
Reorganize the code to make it clear what is and isn't handle, and why.
Restructure bailout to remove (false and confusing) dependence on
CM_Scalarize; just return invalid cost and propagate, that's what it
is for.
This code confuses LV's "Uniform" and LVL/LAI's "Uniform". Despite the
common name, these are different.
* LVs notion means that only the first lane *of each unrolled part* is
required. That is, lanes within a single unroll factor are considered
uniform. This allows e.g. widenable memory ops to be considered
uses of uniform computations.
* LVL and LAI's notion refers to all lanes across all unrollings.
IsUniformMem is in turn defined in terms of LAI's notion. Thus a
UniformMemOpmeans is a memory operation with a loop invariant address.
This means the same address is accessed in every iteration.
The tweaked piece of code was trying to match a uniform mem op (i.e.
fully loop invariant address), but instead checked for LV's notion of
uniformity. In theory, this meant with UF > 1, we could speculate
a load which wasn't safe to execute.
This ends up being mostly silent in current code as it is nearly
impossible to create the case where this difference is visible. The
closest I've come in the test case from 54cb87, but even then, the
incorrect result is only visible in the vplan debug output; before this
change we sink the unsafely speculated load back into the user's predicate
blocks before emitting IR. Both before and after IR are correct so the
differences aren't "interesting".
The other test changes are uninteresting. They're cases where LV's uniform
analysis is slightly weaker than SCEV isLoopInvariant.
This patch adds the AArch64 hook for preferPredicateOverEpilogue,
which currently returns true if SVE is enabled and one of the
following conditions (non-exhaustive) is met:
1. The "sve-tail-folding" option is set to "all", or
2. The "sve-tail-folding" option is set to "all+noreductions"
and the loop does not contain reductions,
3. The "sve-tail-folding" option is set to "all+norecurrences"
and the loop has no first-order recurrences.
Currently the default option is "disabled", but this will be
changed in a later patch.
I've added new tests to show the options behave as expected here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-tail-folding-option.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129560
An srem or sdiv has two cases which can cause undefined behavior, not just one. The existing code did not account for this, and as a result, we miscompiled when we encountered e.g. a srem i64 %v, -1 in a conditional block.
Instead of hand rolling the logic, just use the utility function which exists exactly for this purpose.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130106
At the moment, the VPPRedInstPHIRecipe is not used in subsequent uses of
the predicate recipe. This incorrectly models the def-use chains, as all
later uses should use the phi recipe. Fix that by delaying recording of
the recipe.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129436
At the moment, the cost of runtime checks for scalable vectors is
overestimated due to creating separate vscale * VF expressions for each
check. Instead re-use the first expression.
For scalable vectors, it is not sufficient to only check
MinProfitableTripCount if it is >= VF.getKnownMinValue() * UF, because
this property may not holder for larger values of vscale. In those
cases, compute umax(VF * UF, MinProfTC) instead.
This should fix
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/197/builds/2262
When vectorising ordered reductions we call a function
LoopVectorizationPlanner::adjustRecipesForReductions to replace the
existing VPWidenRecipe for the fadd instruction with a new
VPReductionRecipe. We attempt to insert the new recipe in the same
place, but this is wrong because createBlockInMask may have
generated new recipes that VPReductionRecipe now depends upon. I
have changed the insertion code to append the recipe to the
VPBasicBlock instead.
Added a new RUN with tail-folding enabled to the existing test:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/scalable-strict-fadd.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129550
When calculating the cost of Instruction::Br in getInstructionCost
we query PredicatedBBsAfterVectorization to see if there is a
scalar predicated block. However, this meant that the decisions
being made for a given fixed-width VF were affecting the cost for a
scalable VF. As a result we were returning InstructionCost::Invalid
pointlessly for a scalable VF that should have a low cost. I
encountered this for some loops when enabling tail-folding for
scalable VFs.
Test added here:
Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-tail-folding-cost.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128272
Currently, for vectorised loops that use the get.active.lane.mask
intrinsic we only use the mask for predicated vector operations,
such as masked loads and stores, etc. The loop itself is still
controlled by comparing the canonical induction variable with the
trip count. However, for some targets this is inefficient when it's
cheap to use the mask itself to control the loop.
This patch adds support for using the active lane mask for control
flow by:
1. Generating the active lane mask for the next iteration of the
vector loop, rather than the current one. If there are still any
remaining iterations then at least the first bit of the mask will
be set.
2. Extract the first bit of this mask and use this bit for the
conditional branch.
I did this by creating a new VPActiveLaneMaskPHIRecipe that sets
up the initial PHI values in the vector loop pre-header. I've also
made use of the new BranchOnCond VPInstruction for the final
instruction in the loop region.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D125301
This patch is a simple piece of refactoring that now permits users
to create VPInstructions and specify the name of the value being
generated. This is useful for creating more readable/meaningful
names in IR.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128982
Now that removeDeadRecipes can remove most dead recipes across a whole
VPlan, there is no need to first collect some dead instructions.
Instead removeDeadRecipes can simply clean them up.
Depends D127580.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128408
This can enable additional region merging, while not losing
opportunities as region merging does not produce dead recipes.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128831
For scalable VFs, the minimum assumed vscale needs to be included in the
cost-computation, otherwise a smaller VF may be used for RT check cost
computation than was used for earlier cost computations.
Fixes a RISCV test failing with UBSan due to both scalar and vector
loops having the same cost.
This fixes an UBSan failure after 644a965c1efef. When using
user-provided VFs/ICs (via the force-vector-width /
force-vector-interleave options) the scalar cost is zero, which would
cause divide-by-zero.
When forcing vectorization using the options, the cost of the runtime
checks should not block vectorization.
This patch replaces the tight hard cut-off for the number of runtime
checks with a more accurate cost-driven approach.
The new approach allows vectorization with a larger number of runtime
checks in general, but only executes the vector loop (and runtime checks) if
considered profitable at runtime. Profitable here means that the cost-model
indicates that the runtime check cost + vector loop cost < scalar loop cost.
To do that, LV computes the minimum trip count for which runtime check cost
+ vector-loop-cost < scalar loop cost.
Note that there is still a hard cut-off to avoid excessive compile-time/code-size
increases, but it is much larger than the original limit.
The performance impact on standard test-suites like SPEC2006/SPEC2006/MultiSource
is mostly neutral, but the new approach can give substantial gains in cases where
we failed to vectorize before due to the over-aggressive cut-offs.
On AArch64 with -O3, I didn't observe any regressions outside the noise level (<0.4%)
and there are the following execution time improvements. Both `IRSmk` and `srad` are relatively short running, but the changes are far above the noise level for them on my benchmark system.
```
CFP2006/447.dealII/447.dealII -1.9%
CINT2017rate/525.x264_r/525.x264_r -2.2%
ASC_Sequoia/IRSmk/IRSmk -9.2%
Rodinia/srad/srad -36.1%
```
`size` regressions on AArch64 with -O3 are
```
MultiSource/Applications/hbd/hbd 90256.00 106768.00 18.3%
MultiSourc...ks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000 240676.00 257268.00 6.9%
MultiSourc...enchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign 472603.00 489131.00 3.5%
External/S...2017rate/525.x264_r/525.x264_r 613831.00 630343.00 2.7%
External/S...NT2006/464.h264ref/464.h264ref 818920.00 835448.00 2.0%
External/S...te/538.imagick_r/538.imagick_r 1994730.00 2027754.00 1.7%
MultiSourc...nchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 1236471.00 1253015.00 1.3%
MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc 2108147.00 2124675.00 0.8%
External/S.../CFP2006/447.dealII/447.dealII 4742999.00 4759559.00 0.3%
External/S...rate/510.parest_r/510.parest_r 14206377.00 14239433.00 0.2%
```
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri, ebrevnov, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109368
The moved helpers are only used for codegen. It will allow moving the
remaining ::execute implementations out of LoopVectorize.cpp.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128657
At the moment, the same VPlan can be used code generation of both the
main vector and epilogue vector loop. This can lead to wrong results, if
the plan is optimized based on the VF of the main vector loop and then
re-used for the epilogue loop.
One example where this is problematic is if the scalar loops need to
execute at least one iteration, e.g. due to interleave groups.
To prevent mis-compiles in the short-term, disable optimizing exit
conditions for VPlans when using epilogue vectorization. The proper fix
is to avoid re-using the same plan for both loops, which will require
support for cloning plans first.
Fixes#56319.
