Sometimes LLVM generates branch to return instruction, like PR63227.
It is because in function MachineBlockPlacement::canTailDuplicateUnplacedPreds
we avoid duplicating a BB into another already placed BB to prevent destroying
computed layout. But if the successor BB is a return block, duplicating it will
only reduce taken branches without hurt to any other branches.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153093
This change initializes the members TSI, LI, DT, PSI, and ORE pointer feilds of the SelectOptimize class to nullptr.
Reviewed By: LuoYuanke
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D148303
Use case:
- When block layout is visualized after MBP pass, the basic blocks are labeled in layout order; meanwhile blocks could be numbered in a different order.
- As a result, it's hard to map between the graph and pass output. With this option on, the basic blocks are renumbered in function layout order.
This option is only useful when a function is to be visualized (i.e., when view options are on) to make it debugging only.
Use https://godbolt.org/z/5WTW36bMr as an example:
- As MBP pass output (shown in godbolt output window), `func2` is in a basic block numbered `2` (`bb.2`), and `func1` is in a basic block numbered `3` (`bb.3`);
`bb.3` is a block with higher block frequency than `bb.2`, and `bb.3` is placed before `bb.2` in the functin layout.
- Use [1] to get the dot graph (graph uploaded in [2]), the blocks are re-numbered.
- `func1` is in 'if.end' block, and labeled `1` in visualized dot; `func2` is in 'if.then' blocks, and labeled `3` --> the labeled number and bb number won't map.
- [[ b5626ae975/llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineBlockFrequencyInfo.cpp (L127) | DOTGraphTraits<MachineBlockFrequencyInfo *>::getNodeLabel ]] is where labeled numbers are based on function layout number, and [[ a8d93783f3/llvm/include/llvm/Support/GraphWriter.h (L209)
| called by graph writer ]].
So call 'MachineFunction::RenumberBlocks' would make labeled number (in dot graph) and block number (in pass output) consistent with each other.
[1] `./bin/clang++ -O3 -S -mllvm -view-block-layout-with-bfi=count -mllvm -view-bfi-func-name=_Z9func_loopv -mllvm -print-after=block-placement -mllvm -filter-print-funcs=_Z9func_loopv test.c`
[2] {F25201785}
Reviewed By: davidxl
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D137467
The diff modifies ext-tsp code layout algorithm in the following ways:
(i) fixes merging of cold block chains (this is a port of D129397);
(ii) adjusts the cost model utilized for optimization;
(iii) adjusts some APIs so that the implementation can be used in BOLT; this is
a prerequisite for D129895.
The only non-trivial change is (ii). Here we introduce different weights for
conditional and unconditional branches in the cost model. Based on the new model
it is slightly more important to increase the number of "fall-through
unconditional" jumps, which makes sense, as placing two blocks with an
unconditional jump next to each other reduces the number of jump instructions in
the generated code. Experimentally, this makes a mild impact on the performance;
I've seen up to 0.2%-0.3% perf win on some benchmarks.
Reviewed By: hoy
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129893
This reverts commit 7f230feeeac8a67b335f52bd2e900a05c6098f20.
Breaks CodeGenCUDA/link-device-bitcode.cu in check-clang,
and many LLVM tests, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169
I'm seeing ext-tsp helps CSSPGO for our intern large benchmarks so I'm turning on it for CSSPGO. For non-CS AutoFDO, ext-tsp doesn't seem to help, probably because of lower profile counts quality.
Reviewed By: wenlei
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119048
The current AsmPrinter has support to emit the "Max Skip" operand
(the 3rd of .p2align), however has no support for it to actually be specified.
Adding MaxBytesForAlignment to MachineBasicBlock provides this capability on a
per-block basis. Leaving the value as default (0) causes no observable differences
in behaviour.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D114590
A new basic block ordering improving existing MachineBlockPlacement.
The algorithm tries to find a layout of nodes (basic blocks) of a given CFG
optimizing jump locality and thus processor I-cache utilization. This is
achieved via increasing the number of fall-through jumps and co-locating
frequently executed nodes together. The name follows the underlying
optimization problem, Extended-TSP, which is a generalization of classical
(maximum) Traveling Salesmen Problem.
The algorithm is a greedy heuristic that works with chains (ordered lists)
of basic blocks. Initially all chains are isolated basic blocks. On every
iteration, we pick a pair of chains whose merging yields the biggest increase
in the ExtTSP value, which models how i-cache "friendly" a specific chain is.
A pair of chains giving the maximum gain is merged into a new chain. The
procedure stops when there is only one chain left, or when merging does not
increase ExtTSP. In the latter case, the remaining chains are sorted by
density in decreasing order.
An important aspect is the way two chains are merged. Unlike earlier
algorithms (e.g., based on the approach of Pettis-Hansen), two
chains, X and Y, are first split into three, X1, X2, and Y. Then we
consider all possible ways of gluing the three chains (e.g., X1YX2, X1X2Y,
X2X1Y, X2YX1, YX1X2, YX2X1) and choose the one producing the largest score.
This improves the quality of the final result (the search space is larger)
while keeping the implementation sufficiently fast.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113424
A new basic block ordering improving existing MachineBlockPlacement.
The algorithm tries to find a layout of nodes (basic blocks) of a given CFG
optimizing jump locality and thus processor I-cache utilization. This is
achieved via increasing the number of fall-through jumps and co-locating
frequently executed nodes together. The name follows the underlying
optimization problem, Extended-TSP, which is a generalization of classical
(maximum) Traveling Salesmen Problem.
The algorithm is a greedy heuristic that works with chains (ordered lists)
of basic blocks. Initially all chains are isolated basic blocks. On every
iteration, we pick a pair of chains whose merging yields the biggest increase
in the ExtTSP value, which models how i-cache "friendly" a specific chain is.
A pair of chains giving the maximum gain is merged into a new chain. The
procedure stops when there is only one chain left, or when merging does not
increase ExtTSP. In the latter case, the remaining chains are sorted by
density in decreasing order.
An important aspect is the way two chains are merged. Unlike earlier
algorithms (e.g., based on the approach of Pettis-Hansen), two
chains, X and Y, are first split into three, X1, X2, and Y. Then we
consider all possible ways of gluing the three chains (e.g., X1YX2, X1X2Y,
X2X1Y, X2YX1, YX1X2, YX2X1) and choose the one producing the largest score.
This improves the quality of the final result (the search space is larger)
while keeping the implementation sufficiently fast.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D113424
Function findBestLoopTopHelper tries to find a new loop top block which can also
fall through to OldTop, but it's impossible if OldTop is not a chain header, so
it should exit immediately.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106329
Different targets might handle branch performance differently, so this patch allows for
targets to specify the TailDuplicateSize threshold. Said threshold defines how small a branch
can be and still be duplicated to generate straight-line code instead.
This patch also specifies said override values for the AArch64 subtarget.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95631
Currently we add individual BB to BlockFilterSet if its frequency satisfies
LoopFreq / Freq <= LoopToColdBlockRatio
LoopFreq is edge frequency from outside to loop header.
LoopToColdBlockRatio is a command line parameter.
It doesn't make sense since we always layout whole chain, not individual BBs.
It may also cause a tricky problem. Sometimes it is possible that the LoopFreq
of an inner loop is smaller than LoopFreq of outer loop. So a BB can be in
BlockFilterSet of inner loop, but not in BlockFilterSet of outer loop,
like .cold in the test case. So it is added to the chain of inner loop. When
work on the outer loop, .cold is not added to BlockFilterSet, so the edge to
successor .problem is not counted in UnscheduledPredecessors of .problem chain.
But other blocks in the inner loop are added BlockFilterSet, so the whole inner
loop chain can be layout, and markChainSuccessors is called to decrease
UnscheduledPredecessors of following chains. markChainSuccessors calls
markBlockSuccessors for every BB, even it is not in BlockFilterSet, like .cold,
so .problem chain's UnscheduledPredecessors is decreased, but this edge was not
counted on in fillWorkLists, so .problem chain's UnscheduledPredecessors
becomes 0 when it still has an unscheduled predecessor .pred! And it causes
problems in following various successor BB selection algorithms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89088
The entry block should always be the first BB in a function.
So we should not rotate a chain contains the entry block.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92882
The function was introduced on Jun 12, 2016 in commit
071d0f180794f7819c44026815614ce8fa00a3bd. Its definition was removed
on Mar 2, 2017 in commit 1393761e0ca3fe8271245762f78daf4d5208cd77.
Currently we add individual BB to BlockFilterSet if its frequency satisfies
LoopFreq / Freq <= LoopToColdBlockRatio
LoopFreq is edge frequency from outside to loop header.
LoopToColdBlockRatio is a command line parameter.
It doesn't make sense since we always layout whole chain, not individual BBs.
It may also cause a tricky problem. Sometimes it is possible that the LoopFreq
of an inner loop is smaller than LoopFreq of outer loop. So a BB can be in
BlockFilterSet of inner loop, but not in BlockFilterSet of outer loop,
like .cold in the test case. So it is added to the chain of inner loop. When
work on the outer loop, .cold is not added to BlockFilterSet, so the edge to
successor .problem is not counted in UnscheduledPredecessors of .problem chain.
But other blocks in the inner loop are added BlockFilterSet, so the whole inner
loop chain can be layout, and markChainSuccessors is called to decrease
UnscheduledPredecessors of following chains. markChainSuccessors calls
markBlockSuccessors for every BB, even it is not in BlockFilterSet, like .cold,
so .problem chain's UnscheduledPredecessors is decreased, but this edge was not
counted on in fillWorkLists, so .problem chain's UnscheduledPredecessors
becomes 0 when it still has an unscheduled predecessor .pred! And it causes
problems in following various successor BB selection algorithms.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89088
MBFIWrapper keeps track of block frequencies of newly created blocks and
modified blocks, modified block frequencies should also impact block profile
count. This class doesn't provide interface getBlockProfileCount, users can only
use the underlying MBFI to query profile count, the underlying MBFI doesn't know
the modifications made in MBFIWrapper, so it either provides stale profile count
for modified block or simply crashes on new blocks.
So this patch add function getBlockProfileCount to class MBFIWrapper to handle
new blocks or modified blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87802
Current tail duplication in machine block placement pass uses block frequency
information in cost model. But frequency number has only relative meaning
compared to other basic blocks in the same function. A large frequency number
doesn't mean it is hot and a small frequency number doesn't mean it is cold.
To overcome this problem, this patch uses profile count in cost model if it's
available. So we can tail duplicate real hot basic blocks.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83265
Previously, it tried to infer the correct destination block from the
successor list, but this is a rather tricky propspect, given the
existence of successors that occur mid-block, such as invoke, and
potentially in the future, callbr/INLINEASM_BR. (INLINEASM_BR, in
particular would be problematic, because its successor blocks are not
distinct from "normal" successors, as EHPads are.)
Instead, require the caller to pass in the expected fallthrough
successor explicitly. In most callers, the correct block is
immediately clear. But, in MachineBlockPlacement, we do need to record
the original ordering, before starting to reorder blocks.
Unfortunately, the goal of decoupling the behavior of end-of-block
jumps from the successor list has not been fully accomplished in this
patch, as there is currently no other way to determine whether a block
is intended to fall-through, or end as unreachable. Further work is
needed there.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79605
Summary: A count profile may affect tail duplication's heuristic causing a block to be duplicated in only a part of its predecessors. This is not allowed in the Machine Block Placement pass where an assert will go off. I'm removing the assert and making the optimization bail out when such case happens.
Reviewers: wenlei, davidxl, Carrot
Reviewed By: Carrot
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77748
Summary:
If the programmer adds static profile data to a branch---i.e. uses
"__builtin_expect()" or similar---then we should honor it. Otherwise,
"__builtin_expect()" is ignored in crucial situations. So we trust that
the programmer knows what they're doing until proven wrong.
Subscribers: hiraditya, JDevlieghere, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74809
Current tail duplication embedded in MBP duplicates a BB into all or none of its predecessors without too much cost analysis. So sometimes it is duplicated into cold predecessors, and in other cases it may miss the duplication into hot predecessors.
This patch improves tail duplication in 3 aspects:
A successor can be duplicated into part of its predecessors.
A more fine-grained benefit analysis, combined with 1, now a successor is duplicated into hot predecessors only.
If a successor can't be duplicated into one predecessor, it doesn't impact the duplication into other predecessors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73387
Some code gen passes use MBFIWrapper to keep track of the frequency of new
blocks. This was not taken into account and could lead to incorrect frequencies
as MBFI silently returns zero frequency for unknown/new blocks.
Add a variant for MBFIWrapper in the PGSO query interface.
Depends on D73494.
Summary:
To avoid header file circular dependency issues in passing updated MBFI (in
MBFIWrapper) to the interface of profile guided size optimizations.
A prep step for (and split off of) D73381.
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: mgorny, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73494
These names have been changed from CamelCase to camelCase, but there were
many places (comments mostly) that still used the old names.
This change is NFC.
Summary:
Split off of D67120.
Add the profile guided size optimization instrumentation / queries in the code
gen or target passes. This doesn't enable the size optimizations in those passes
yet as they are currently disabled in shouldOptimizeForSize (for non-IR pass
queries).
A second try after reverted D71072.
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71149
Summary:
Split off of D67120.
Add the profile guided size optimization instrumentation / queries in the code
gen or target passes. This doesn't enable the size optimizations in those passes
yet as they are currently disabled in shouldOptimizeForSize (for non-IR pass
queries).
Reviewers: davidxl
Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71072
Current tail duplication integrated in bb layout is designed to increase the fallthrough from a BB's predecessor to its successor, but we have observed cases that duplication doesn't increase fallthrough, or it brings too much size overhead.
To overcome these two issues in function canTailDuplicateUnplacedPreds I add two checks:
make sure there is at least one duplication in current work set.
the number of duplication should not exceed the number of successors.
The modification in hasBetterLayoutPredecessor fixes a bug that potential predecessor must be at the bottom of a chain.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64376
This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.
I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h
Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.
Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211
