As a followup to D95291, getOperandsScalarizationOverhead was still
using a VF as a vector factor if the arguments were scalar, and would
assert on certain matrix intrinsics with differently sized vector
arguments. This patch removes the VF arg, instead passing the Types
through directly. This should allow it to more accurately compute the
cost without having to guess at which operands will be vectorized,
something difficult with more complex intrinsics.
This adjusts one SVE test as it is now calling the wrong intrinsic vs
veccall. Without invalid InstructCosts the cost of the scalarized
intrinsic is too low. This should get fixed when the cost of
scalarization is accounted for with scalable types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96287
getIntrinsicInstrCost takes a IntrinsicCostAttributes holding various
parameters of the intrinsic being costed. It can either be called with a
scalar intrinsic (RetTy==Scalar, VF==1), with a vector instruction
(RetTy==Vector, VF==1) or from the vectorizer with a scalar type and
vector width (RetTy==Scalar, VF>1). A RetTy==Vector, VF>1 is considered
an error. Both of the vector modes are expected to be treated the same,
but because this is confusing many backends end up getting it wrong.
Instead of trying work with those two values separately this removes the
VF parameter, widening the RetTy/ArgTys by VF used called from the
vectorizer. This keeps things simpler, but does require some other
modifications to keep things consistent.
Most backends look like this will be an improvement (or were not using
getIntrinsicInstrCost). AMDGPU needed the most changes to keep the code
from c230965ccf36af5c88c working. ARM removed the fix in
dfac521da1b90db683, webassembly happens to get a fixup for an SLP cost
issue and both X86 and AArch64 seem to now be using better costs from
the vectorizer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95291
This patch extends VPWidenPHIRecipe to manage pairs of incoming
(VPValue, VPBasicBlock) in the VPlan native path. This is made possible
because we now directly manage defined VPValues for recipes.
By keeping both the incoming value and block in the recipe directly,
code-generation in the VPlan native path becomes independent of the
predecessor ordering when fixing up non-induction phis, which currently
can cause crashes in the VPlan native path.
This fixes PR45958.
Reviewed By: sguggill
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96773
This is a fix for https://llvm.org/PR49215 either before/after
we make a verifier enhancement for vector reductions with D96904.
I'm not sure what the current thinking is for pointer math/logic
in IR. We allow icmp on pointer values. Therefore, we match min/max
patterns, so without this patch, the vectorizer could form a vector
reduction from that sequence.
But the LangRef definitions for min/max and vector reduction
intrinsics do not allow pointer types:
https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-smax-intrinsichttps://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-vector-reduce-umax-intrinsic
So we would crash/assert at some point - either in IR verification,
in the cost model, or in codegen. If we do want to allow this kind
of transform, we will need to update the LangRef and all of those
parts of the compiler.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D97047
Now that all state for generated instructions is managed directly in
VPTransformState, VPCallBack is no longer needed. This patch updates the
last use of `getOrCreateScalarValue` to instead manage the value
directly in VPTransformState and removes VPCallback.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95383
A v8i32 compare will produce a v8i1 predicate, but during codegen the
v8i32 will be split into two v4i32, potentially requiring two v4i1
predicates to be merged into a single v8i1. Because this merging of two
v4i1's into a v8i1 is very expensive, we need to make the cost of the
compare equally high.
This patch adds the cost of that to ARMTTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost.
Because we don't know whether the user of the predicate can be split,
and the cost model is mostly pre-instruction, we may be pessimistic but
that should only be for larger and legal types. This also adds min/max
detection to the costmodel where it can be detected, to keep those in
line with the cost of simple min/max instructions. Otherwise for the
most part, costs that were already expensive have become more expensive.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96692
Floating point conversions inside vectorized loops have performance
implications but are very subtle. The user could specify a floating
point constant, or call a function without realizing that it will
force a change in the vector width. An example of this behaviour is
seen in https://godbolt.org/z/M3nT6c . The vectorizer should indicate
when this happens becuase it is most likely unintended behaviour.
This patch adds a simple check for this behaviour by following floating
point stores in the original loop and checking if a floating point
conversion operation occurs.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95539
This patch enables scalable vectorization of loops with integer/fast reductions, e.g:
```
unsigned sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
sum += a[i];
}
```
A new TTI interface, isLegalToVectorizeReduction, has been added to prevent
reductions which are not supported for scalable types from vectorizing.
If the reduction is not supported for a given scalable VF,
computeFeasibleMaxVF will fall back to using fixed-width vectorization.
Reviewed By: david-arm, fhahn, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95245
This patch updates codegen to use VPValues to manage the generated
scalarized instructions.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92285
Currently, setting the `no-nans-fp-math` attribute to true will allow
loops with fmin/fmax to vectorize, though we should be requiring that
`no-signed-zeros-fp-math` is also set.
This patch adds the check for no-signed-zeros at the function level and includes
tests to make sure we don't vectorize functions with only one of the attributes
associated.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96604
This patch fixes pr48832 by correctly generating the mask when a poison value is involved.
Consider this CFG (which is a part of the input):
```
for.body: ; preds = %for.cond
br i1 true, label %cond.false, label %land.rhs
land.rhs: ; preds = %for.body
br i1 poison, label %cond.end, label %cond.false
cond.false: ; preds = %for.body, %land.rhs
br label %cond.end
cond.end: ; preds = %land.rhs, %cond.false
%cond = phi i32 [ 0, %cond.false ], [ 1, %land.rhs ]
```
The path for.body -> land.rhs -> cond.end should be taken when 'select i1 false, i1 poison, i1 false' holds (which means it's never taken); but VPRecipeBuilder::createEdgeMask was emitting 'and i1 false, poison' instead.
The former one successfully blocks poison propagation whereas the latter one doesn't, making the condition poison and thus causing the miscompilation.
SimplifyCFG has a similar bug (which didn't expose a real-world bug yet), and a patch for this is also ongoing (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D95026).
Reviewed By: bjope
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95217
Changes `getScalarizationOverhead` to return an invalid cost for scalable VFs
and adds some simple tests for loops containing a function for which
there is a vectorized variant available.
Reviewed By: david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96356
The vector reduction intrinsics started life as experimental ops, so backend support
was lacking. As part of promoting them to 1st-class intrinsics, however, codegen
support was added/improved:
D58015
D90247
So I think it is safe to now remove this complication from IR.
Note that we still have an IR-level codegen expansion pass for these as discussed
in D95690. Removing that is another step in simplifying the logic. Also note that
x86 was already unconditionally forming reductions in IR, so there should be no
difference for x86.
I spot checked a couple of the tests here by running them through opt+llc and did
not see any asm diffs.
If we do find functional differences for other targets, it should be possible
to (at least temporarily) restore the shuffle IR with the ExpandReductions IR
pass.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96552
This reverts commit 502a67dd7f23901834e05071ab253889f671b5d9.
This expose a failure in test-suite build on PowerPC,
revert to unblock buildbot first,
Dave will re-commit in https://reviews.llvm.org/D96287.
Thanks Dave.
Define an option -riscv-vector-bits-max to specify the maximum vector
bits for vectorizer. Loop vectorizer will use the value to check if it
is safe to use the whole vector registers to vectorize the loop.
It is not the optimum solution for loop vectorizing for scalable vector.
It assumed the whole vector registers will be used to vectorize the code.
If it is possible, we should configure vl to do vectorize instead of
using whole vector registers.
We only consider LMUL = 1 in this patch.
This patch just an initial work for loop vectorizer for RISC-V Vector.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95659
getIntrinsicInstrCost takes a IntrinsicCostAttributes holding various
parameters of the intrinsic being costed. It can either be called with a
scalar intrinsic (RetTy==Scalar, VF==1), with a vector instruction
(RetTy==Vector, VF==1) or from the vectorizer with a scalar type and
vector width (RetTy==Scalar, VF>1). A RetTy==Vector, VF>1 is considered
an error. Both of the vector modes are expected to be treated the same,
but because this is confusing many backends end up getting it wrong.
Instead of trying work with those two values separately this removes the
VF parameter, widening the RetTy/ArgTys by VF used called from the
vectorizer. This keeps things simpler, but does require some other
modifications to keep things consistent.
Most backends look like this will be an improvement (or were not using
getIntrinsicInstrCost). AMDGPU needed the most changes to keep the code
from c230965ccf36af5c88c working. ARM removed the fix in
dfac521da1b90db683, webassembly happens to get a fixup for an SLP cost
issue and both X86 and AArch64 seem to now be using better costs from
the vectorizer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95291
If we know that the scalar epilogue is required to run, modify the CFG to end the middle block with an unconditional branch to scalar preheader. This is instead of a conditional branch to either the preheader or the exit block.
The motivation to do this is to support multiple exit blocks. Specifically, the current structure forces us to identify immediate dominators and *which* exit block to branch from in the middle terminator. For the multiple exit case - where we know require scalar will hold - these questions are ill formed.
This is the last change needed to support multiple exit loops, but since the diffs are already large enough, I'm going to land this, and then enable separately. You can think of this as being NFCI-ish prep work, but the changes are a bit too involved for me to feel comfortable tagging the change that way.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94892
This patch updates IRBuilder::CreateMaskedGather/Scatter to work
with ScalableVectorType and adds isLegalMaskedGather/Scatter functions
to AArch64TargetTransformInfo. In addition I've fixed up
isLegalMaskedLoad/Store to return true for supported scalar types,
since this is what the vectorizer asks for.
In LoopVectorize.cpp I've changed
LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInterleaveGroupCost to return an invalid
cost for scalable vectors, since currently this relies upon using shuffle
vector for reversing vectors. In addition, in
LoopVectorizationCostModel::setCostBasedWideningDecision I have assumed
that the cost of scalarising memory ops is infinitely expensive.
I have added some simple masked load/store and gather/scatter tests,
including cases where we use gathers and scatters for conditional invariant
loads and stores.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95350
Extend applyLoopGuards() to take into account conditions/assumes proving some
value %v to be divisible by D by rewriting %v to (%v / D) * D. This lets the
loop unroller and the loop vectorizer identify more loops as not requiring
remainder loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95521
This is another step (see D95452) towards correcting fast-math-flags
bugs in vector reductions.
There are multiple bugs visible in the test diffs, and this is still
not working as it should. We still use function attributes (rather
than FMF) to drive part of the logic, but we are not checking for
the correct FP function attributes.
Note that FMF may not be propagated optimally on selects (example
in https://llvm.org/PR35607 ). That's why I'm proposing to union the
FMF of a fcmp+select pair and avoid regressions on existing vectorizer
tests.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95690
D90687 introduced a crash:
llvm::LoopVectorizationCostModel::computeMaxVF(llvm::ElementCount, unsigned int):
Assertion `WideningDecisions.empty() && Uniforms.empty() && Scalars.empty() &&
"No decisions should have been taken at this point"' failed.
when compiling the following C code:
typedef struct {
char a;
} b;
b *c;
int d, e;
int f() {
int g = 0;
for (; d; d++) {
e = 0;
for (; e < c[d].a; e++)
g++;
}
return g;
}
with:
clang -Os -target hexagon -mhvx -fvectorize -mv67 testcase.c -S -o -
This occurred since prior to D90687 computeFeasibleMaxVF would only be
called in computeMaxVF when a scalar epilogue was allowed, but now it's
always called. This causes the assert above since computeFeasibleMaxVF
collects all viable VFs larger than the default MaxVF, and for each VF
calculates the register usage which results in analysis being done the
assert above guards against. This can occur in computeFeasibleMaxVF if
TTI.shouldMaximizeVectorBandwidth and this target hook is implemented in
the hexagon backend to always return true.
Reported by @iajbar.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D94869
I am trying to untangle the fast-math-flags propagation logic
in the vectorizers (see a6f022127 for SLP).
The loop vectorizer has a mix of checking FP function attributes,
IR-level FMF, and just wrong assumptions.
I am trying to avoid regressions while fixing this, and I think
the IR-level logic is good enough for that, but it's hard to say
for sure. This would be the 1st step in the clean-up.
The existing test that I changed to include 'fast' actually shows
a miscompile: the function only had the equivalent of nnan, but we
created new instructions that had fast (all FMF set). This is
similar to the example in https://llvm.org/PR35538
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95452
The existing test has less FMF than we might expect if
our FMF was fixed (on all FP values), so this additional
test is intended to check propagation in a more "normal"
example.
I have removed an unnecessary assert in LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInstructionCost
that prevented a cost being calculated for select instructions when using
scalable vectors. In addition, I have changed AArch64TTIImpl::getCmpSelInstrCost
to only do special cost calculations for fixed width vectors and fall
back to the base version for scalable vectors.
I have added a simple cost model test for cmps and selects:
test/Analysis/CostModel/sve-cmpsel.ll
and some simple tests that show we vectorize loops with cmp and select:
test/Transforms/LoopVectorize/AArch64/sve-basic-vec.ll
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95039
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Initially reverted due to BasicAA running analyses in an unspecified
order (multiple function calls as parameters), fixed by fetching
analyses before the call to construct BasicAA.
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
We tend to assume that the AA pipeline is by default the default AA
pipeline and it's confusing when it's empty instead.
PR48779
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95117
This adds cost modelling for the inloop vectorization added in
745bf6cf4471. Up until now they have been modelled as the original
underlying instruction, usually an add. This happens to works OK for MVE
with instructions that are reducing into the same type as they are
working on. But MVE's instructions can perform the equivalent of an
extended MLA as a single instruction:
%sa = sext <16 x i8> A to <16 x i32>
%sb = sext <16 x i8> B to <16 x i32>
%m = mul <16 x i32> %sa, %sb
%r = vecreduce.add(%m)
->
R = VMLADAV A, B
There are other instructions for performing add reductions of
v4i32/v8i16/v16i8 into i32 (VADDV), for doing the same with v4i32->i64
(VADDLV) and for performing a v4i32/v8i16 MLA into an i64 (VMLALDAV).
The i64 are particularly interesting as there are no native i64 add/mul
instructions, leading to the i64 add and mul naturally getting very
high costs.
Also worth mentioning, under NEON there is the concept of a sdot/udot
instruction which performs a partial reduction from a v16i8 to a v4i32.
They extend and mul/sum the first four elements from the inputs into the
first element of the output, repeating for each of the four output
lanes. They could possibly be represented in the same way as above in
llvm, so long as a vecreduce.add could perform a partial reduction. The
vectorizer would then produce a combination of in and outer loop
reductions to efficiently use the sdot and udot instructions. Although
this patch does not do that yet, it does suggest that separating the
input reduction type from the produced result type is a useful concept
to model. It also shows that a MLA reduction as a single instruction is
fairly common.
This patch attempt to improve the costmodelling of in-loop reductions
by:
- Adding some pattern matching in the loop vectorizer cost model to
match extended reduction patterns that are optionally extended and/or
MLA patterns. This marks the cost of the reduction instruction correctly
and the sext/zext/mul leading up to it as free, which is otherwise
difficult to tell and may get a very high cost. (In the long run this
can hopefully be replaced by vplan producing a single node and costing
it correctly, but that is not yet something that vplan can do).
- getExtendedAddReductionCost is added to query the cost of these
extended reduction patterns.
- Expanded the ARM costs to account for these expanded sizes, which is a
fairly simple change in itself.
- Some minor alterations to allow inloop reduction larger than the highest
vector width and i64 MVE reductions.
- An extra InLoopReductionImmediateChains map was added to the vectorizer
for it to efficiently detect which instructions are reductions in the
cost model.
- The tests have some updates to show what I believe is optimal
vectorization and where we are now.
Put together this can greatly improve performance for reduction loop
under MVE.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93476
It turns out the vectorizer calls the getIntrinsicInstrCost functions
with a scalar return type and vector VF. This updates the costmodel to
handle that, still producing the correct vector costs.
A vectorizer test is added to show it vectorizing at the correct factor
again.
Just like llvm.assume, there are a lot of cases where we can just ignore llvm.experimental.noalias.scope.decl.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93042
Keys matching the tombstone/empty special values cannot be inserted in a
DenseMap. Under some circumstances, LV tries to add members to an
interleave group that match the special values. Skip adding such
members. This is unlikely to have any impact in practice, because
interleave groups with such indices are very likely to not be
vectorized, due to gaps.
This issue has been surfaced by fuzzing, see
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11638
This relates to the ongoing effort to support vectorization of multiple exit loops (see D93317).
The previous code assumed that LCSSA phis were always single entry before the vectorizer ran. This was correct, but only because the vectorizer allowed only a single exiting edge. There's nothing in the definition of LCSSA which requires single entry phis.
A common case where this comes up is with a loop with multiple exiting blocks which all reach a common exit block. (e.g. see the test updates)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93725
This patch unifies the way recipes and VPValues are printed after the
transition to VPDef.
VPSlotTracker has been updated to iterate over all recipes and all
their defined values to number those. There is no need to number
values in Value2VPValue.
It also updates a few places that only used slot numbers for
VPInstruction. All recipes now can produce numbered VPValues.
In the following loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 4] = a[i] + b[i];
}
The loop dependence constrains the VF to a maximum of (4, fixed), which
would mean using <4 x i32> as the vector type in vectorization.
Extending this to scalable vectorization, a VF of (4, scalable) implies
a vector type of <vscale x 4 x i32>. To determine if this is legal
vscale must be taken into account. For this example, unless
max(vscale)=1, it's unsafe to vectorize.
For SVE, the number of bits in an SVE register is architecturally
defined to be a multiple of 128 bits with a maximum of 2048 bits, thus
the maximum vscale is 16. In the loop above it is therefore unfeasible
to vectorize with SVE. However, in this loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(X, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 32] = a[i] + b[i];
}
As long as max(vscale) multiplied by the number of lanes 'X' doesn't
exceed the dependence distance, it is safe to vectorize. For SVE a VF of
(2, scalable) is within this constraint, since a vector of <16 x 2 x 32>
will have no dependencies between lanes. For any number of lanes larger
than this it would be unsafe to vectorize.
This patch extends 'computeFeasibleMaxVF' to legalize scalable VFs
specified as loop hints, implementing the following behaviour:
* If the backend does not support scalable vectors, ignore the hint.
* If scalable vectorization is unfeasible given the loop
dependence, like in the first example above for SVE, then use a
fixed VF.
* Accept scalable VFs if it's safe to do so.
* Otherwise, clamp scalable VFs that exceed the maximum safe VF.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91718
