This is another attempt to land this patch.
The patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange,
which is obtained from loop cache analysis.
Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of
loops [loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as
the outermost loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and
loop2 one more level inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not
only more comprehensive than the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot"
query which means that we only need to query it once during the entire
loop interchange pass, which is better than the current cost model where
we query it every time we check whether it is profitable to interchange
two loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after D120386 where we
do more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.
Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some
corrections. One change that applies to all tests is that we added an option
`-cache-line-size=64` to the RUN lines. This is ensure that loop
cache analysis receives a valid number of cache line size for correct
analysis. Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.
Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but
keep it as fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully.
This is because currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which
sometimes makes loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to
enhance delinearization and eventually remove the legacy cost model
compeletely.
Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926
llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp:702:30: runtime error: signed
integer overflow: 6148914691236517209 * 100 cannot be represented in
type 'long'
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/5/builds/25185
This reverts commit 1b24fe34b06cd9f2337313f513a8b19f9a37c5de.
This is the second attempt to land this patch.
The patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange,
which is obtained from loop cache analysis.
Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of
loops [loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as the
outermost loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and loop2
one more level inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not only more
comprehensive than the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot" query
which means that we only need to query it once during the entire loop
interchange pass, which is better than the current cost model where we
query it every time we check whether it is profitable to interchange two
loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after D120386 where we do
more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.
Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some corrections.
One change that applies to all tests is that we added an option
`-cache-line-size=64` to the RUN lines. This is ensure that loop cache
analysis receives a valid number of cache line size for correct analysis.
Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.
Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but keep it
as fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully. This is
because currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which sometimes
makes loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to enhance
delinearization and eventually remove the legacy cost model compeletely.
Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926
This patch proposed to use a new cost model for loop interchange, which
is obtained from loop cache analysis.
Given a loopnest, what loop cache analysis returns is a vector of loops
[loop0, loop1, loop2, ...] where loop0 should be replaced as the outermost
loop, loop1 should be placed one more level inside, and loop2 one more level
inside, etc. What loop cache analysis does is not only more comprehensive than
the current cost model, it is also a "one-shot" query which means that we only
need to query it once during the entire loop interchange pass, which is better
than the current cost model where we query it every time we check whether it is
profitable to interchange two loops. Thus complexity is reduced, especially after
D120386 where we do more interchanges to get the globally optimal loop access pattern.
Updates made to test cases are mostly minor changes and some corrections.
Test coverage for loop interchange is not reduced.
Currently we did not completely remove the legacy cost model, but keep it as
fall-back in case the new cost model did not run successfully. This is because
currently we have some limitations in delinearization, which sometimes makes
loop cache analysis bail out. The longer term goal is to enhance delinearization
and eventually remove the legacy cost model compeletely.
Reviewed By: bmahjour, #loopoptwg
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124926
There was a limitation in legality that in the original inner loop latch,
no instruction was allowed between the induction variable increment
and the branch instruction. This is because we used to split the
inner latch at the induction variable increment instruction. Since
now we have split at the inner latch branch instruction and have
properly duplicated instructions over to the split block, we remove
this limitation.
Please refer to the test case updates to see how we now interchange
loops where instructions exist between the induction variable
increment and the branch instruction.
Reviewed By: bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115238
There was a limitation in legality that in the original inner loop latch,
no instruction was allowed between the induction variable increment
and the branch instruction. This is because we used to split the
inner latch at the induction variable increment instruction. Since
now we have split at the inner latch branch instruction and have
properly duplicated instructions over to the split block, we remove
this limitation.
Please refer to the test case updates to see how we now interchange
loops where instructions exist between the induction variable increment
and the branch instruction.
Reviewed By: bmahjour
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115238
Summary:
Currently the dependence analysis in LLVM is unable to compute accurate
dependence vectors for multi-dimensional fixed size arrays.
This is mainly because the delinearization algorithm in scalar evolution
relies on parametric terms to be present in the access functions. In the
case of fixed size arrays such parametric terms are not present, but we
can use the indexes from GEP instructions to recover the subscripts for
each dimension of the arrays. This patch adds this ability under the
existing option `-da-disable-delinearization-checks`.
Authored By: bmahjour
Reviewer: Meinersbur, sebpop, fhahn, dmgreen, grosser, etiotto, bollu
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Subscribers: hiraditya, arphaman, Whitney, ppc-slack, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72178
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
This also means we have to check if the latch is the exiting block now,
as `transform` expects the latches to be the exiting blocks too.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36586
Reviewers: efriedma, davide, karthikthecool
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45279
llvm-svn: 330806
LoopInterchange relies on LoopInfo being up-to-date, so we should
preserve it after interchanging. This patch updates restructureLoops to
move the BBs of the interchanged loops to the right place.
Reviewers: davide, efriedma, karthikthecool, mcrosier
Reviewed By: efriedma
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45278
llvm-svn: 329264
It's been quite some time the Dependence Analysis (DA) is broken,
as it uses the GEP representation to "identify" multi-dimensional arrays.
It even wrongly detects multi-dimensional arrays in single nested loops:
from test/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis/Coupled.ll, example @couple6
;; for (long int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
;; A[i][3*i - 6] = i;
;; *B++ = A[i][i];
DA used to detect two subscripts, which makes no sense in the LLVM IR
or in C/C++ semantics, as there are no guarantees as in Fortran of
subscripts not overlapping into a next array dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcPtrSCEV = %A
DstPtrSCEV = %A
using GEPs
subscript 0
src = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
subscript 1
src = {-6,+,3}<nsw><%for.body>
dst = {0,+,1}<nuw><nsw><%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {}
Coupled = {1}
With the current patch, DA will correctly work on only one dimension:
maximum nesting levels = 1
SrcSCEV = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
DstSCEV = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
subscript 0
src = {(-2424 + %A)<nsw>,+,1212}<%for.body>
dst = {%A,+,404}<%for.body>
class = 1
loops = {1}
Separable = {0}
Coupled = {}
This change removes all uses of GEP from DA, and we now only rely
on the SCEV representation.
The patch does not turn on -da-delinearize by default, and so the DA analysis
will be more conservative in the case of multi-dimensional memory accesses in
nested loops.
I disabled some interchange tests, as the DA is not able to disambiguate
the dependence anymore. To make DA stronger, we may need to
compute a bound on the number of iterations based on the access functions
and array dimensions.
The patch cleans up all the CHECKs in test/Transforms/LoopInterchange/*.ll to
avoid checking for snippets of LLVM IR: this form of checking is very hard to
maintain. Instead, we now check for output of the pass that are more meaningful
than dozens of lines of LLVM IR. Some tests now require -debug messages and thus
only enabled with asserts.
Patch written by Sebastian Pop and Aditya Kumar.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35430
llvm-svn: 326837
We can use incremental dominator tree updates to avoid re-calculating
the dominator tree after interchanging 2 loops.
Reviewers: dmgreen, kuhar
Reviewed By: kuhar
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43176
llvm-svn: 325122
This pass interchanges loops to provide a more cache-friendly memory access.
For e.g. given a loop like -
for(int i=0;i<N;i++)
for(int j=0;j<N;j++)
A[j][i] = A[j][i]+B[j][i];
is interchanged to -
for(int j=0;j<N;j++)
for(int i=0;i<N;i++)
A[j][i] = A[j][i]+B[j][i];
This pass is currently disabled by default.
To give a brief introduction it consists of 3 stages-
LoopInterchangeLegality : Checks the legality of loop interchange based on Dependency matrix.
LoopInterchangeProfitability: A very basic heuristic has been added to check for profitibility. This will evolve over time.
LoopInterchangeTransform : Which does the actual transform.
LNT Performance tests shows improvement in Polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/mvt and Polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/gemver becnmarks.
TODO:
1) Add support for reductions and lcssa phi.
2) Improve profitability model.
3) Improve loop selection algorithm to select best loop for interchange. Currently the innermost loop is selected for interchange.
4) Improve compile time regression found in llvm lnt due to this pass.
5) Fix issues in Dependency Analysis module.
A special thanks to Hal for reviewing this code.
Review: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7499
llvm-svn: 231458
