Regarding this bug I posted earlier: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47035
After reading through LLVM source code and getting familiar with VPlan I was able to vectorize the code using by enabling VPlan native path. After talking with @fhahn he suggested that I contribute this as a test case. So here it is. I tried to follow the available guides how to do this best I could. I modified IR code by hand to have more clear variable names instead of numbers.
One thing what I'd like to get input from someone is that is current CHECK lines sufficient enough to verify that the inner loop has been vectorized properly?
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87564
We have been running tests/benchmarks downstream with tail-predication enabled
for some time now and this behaves as expected: we are not aware of any
correctness issues, and this performs better across the board than with
tail-predication disabled. Time to flip the switch!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88093
For some expressions, we can use information from loop guards when
we are looking for a maximum. This patch applies information from
loop guards to the expression used to compute the maximum backedge
taken count in howFarToZero. It currently replaces an unknown
expression X with UMin(X, Y), if the loop is guarded by
X ult Y.
This patch is minimal in what conditions it applies, and there
are a few TODOs to generalize.
This partly addresses PR40961. We will also need an update to
LV to address it completely.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67178
Although LLVM supports vectorization of loops containing log10/sqrt, it did not support using SVML implementation of it. Added support so that when clang is invoked with -fveclib=SVML now an appropriate SVML library log2 implementation will be invoked.
Follow up on: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77114
Tests:
Added unit tests to svml-calls.ll, svml-calls-finite.ll. Can be run with llvm-lint.
Created a simple c++ file that tests log10/sqrt, and used clang+ to build it, and output final assembly.
Reviewed By: craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D87169
This allows the backend to tell the vectorizer to produce inloop
reductions through a TTI hook.
For the moment on ARM under MVE this means allowing integer add
reductions of the correct size. In the future this can include integer
min/max too, under -Os.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75512
Although LLVM supports vectorization of loops containing log2, it did not support using SVML implementation of it. Added support so that when clang is invoked with -fveclib=SVML now an appropriate SVML library log2 implementation will be invoked.
Follow up on: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77114
Tests:
Added unit tests to svml-calls.ll, svml-calls-finite.ll. Can be run with llvm-lint.
Created a simple c++ file that tests log2, and used clang+ to build it, and output final assembly.
Reviewed By: wenlei, craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86730
Interleave for small loops that have reductions inside,
which breaks dependencies and expose.
This gives very significant performance improvements for some benchmarks.
Because small loops could be in very hot functions in real applications.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81416
addRuntimeChecks uses SCEVExpander, which relies on the DT/LoopInfo to
be up-to-date. Changing the CFG afterwards may invalidate some inserted
instructions, especially LCSSA phis.
Reorder the code to first update the CFG and then create the runtime
checks. This should not have any impact on the generated code, as we
adjust the CFG and generate runtime checks together.
Fixes PR47343.
The original take 1 was 6102310d814ad73eab60a88b21dd70874f7a056f,
which taught InstSimplify to do that, which seemed better at time,
since we got EarlyCSE support for free.
However, it was proven that we can not do that there,
the simplified-to PHI would not be reachable from the original PHI,
and that is not something InstSimplify is allowed to do,
as noted in the commit ed90f15efb40d26b5d3ead3bb8e9e284218e0186
that reverted it:
> It appears to cause compilation non-determinism and caused stage3 mismatches.
Then there was take 2 3e69871ab5a66fb55913a2a2f5e7f5b42899a4c9,
which was InstCombine-specific, but it again showed stage2-stage3 differences,
and reverted in bdaa3f86a040b138c58de41d73d35b76fdec1380.
This is quite alarming.
Here, let's try to change how we find existing PHI candidate:
due to the worklist order, and the way PHI nodes are inserted
(it may be inserted as the first one, or maybe not), let's look at *all*
PHI nodes in the block.
Effects on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | \|%\| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------:|---------:|---------:|
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7942329 | 7942457 | 128 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 254295632 | 254312480 | 16848 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumPhis | 18412 | 18347 | -65 | -0.35% | 0.35% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183283 | 2183267 | -16 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 550105 | 541842 | -8263 | -1.50% | 1.50% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 73 | 4506 | 4433 | 6072.60% | 6072.60% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3640311 | 3644419 | 4108 | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1778204 | 1783205 | 5001 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcombine.NumPHICSEs | 0 | 22490 | 22490 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcombine.NumWorklistIterations | 2023272 | 2024400 | 1128 | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1758395 | 1758802 | 407 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 59478 | 59502 | 24 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 330557 | 330545 | -12 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1077138 | 1077220 | 82 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101442 | 101441 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8831946 | 8832606 | 660 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumHoistCommonCode | 24186 | 24187 | 1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 4300 | 4410 | 110 | 2.56% | 2.56% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 1019813 | 999767 | -20046 | -1.97% | 1.97% |
```
So it fires 22490 times, which is less than ~24k the take 1 did,
but more than what take 2 did (22228 times)
.
It allows foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse() to actually work
after PHI-of-extractvalue folds did their thing. Previously SimplifyCFG
would have done this PHI CSE, of all places. Additionally, allows some
more `invoke`->`call` folds to happen (+110, +2.56%).
All in all, expectedly, this catches less things overall,
but all the motivational cases are still caught, so all good.
While the original variant with doing this in InstSimplify (rightfully)
caused questions and ultimately was detected to be a culprit
of stage2-stage3 mismatch, it was expected that
InstCombine-based implementation would be fine.
But apparently it's not, as
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/24095/steps/compare-compilers/logs/stdio
suggests.
Which suggests that somewhere in InstCombine there is a loop
over nondeterministically sorted container, which causes
different worklist ordering.
This reverts commit 3e69871ab5a66fb55913a2a2f5e7f5b42899a4c9.
The original take was 6102310d814ad73eab60a88b21dd70874f7a056f,
which taught InstSimplify to do that, which seemed better at time,
since we got EarlyCSE support for free.
However, it was proven that we can not do that there,
the simplified-to PHI would not be reachable from the original PHI,
and that is not something InstSimplify is allowed to do,
as noted in the commit ed90f15efb40d26b5d3ead3bb8e9e284218e0186
that reverted it :
> It appears to cause compilation non-determinism and caused stage3 mismatches.
However InstCombine already does many different optimizations,
so it should be a safe place to do it here.
Note that we still can't just compare incoming values ranges,
because there is no guarantee that these PHI's we'd simplify to
were already re-visited and sorted.
However coming up with a test is problematic.
Effects on vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | |%| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------:|---------:|---------:|
| instcombine.NumPHICSEs | 0 | 22228 | 22228 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7942329 | 7942456 | 127 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 254295632 | 254313792 | 18160 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183283 | 2183272 | -11 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 550105 | 541842 | -8263 | -1.50% | 1.50% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 73 | 4506 | 4433 | 6072.60% | 6072.60% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3640311 | 3666911 | 26600 | 0.73% | 0.73% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1778204 | 1783318 | 5114 | 0.29% | 0.29% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1758395 | 1758804 | 409 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 59478 | 59502 | 24 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 330557 | 330549 | -8 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalBlocks | 1077138 | 1077221 | 83 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcount.TotalFuncs | 101442 | 101441 | -1 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8831946 | 8832611 | 665 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 4300 | 4410 | 110 | 2.56% | 2.56% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 1019813 | 999740 | -20073 | -1.97% | 1.97% |
```
So it fires ~22k times, which is less than ~24k the take 1 did.
It allows foldAggregateConstructionIntoAggregateReuse() to actually work
after PHI-of-extractvalue folds did their thing. Previously SimplifyCFG
would have done this PHI CSE, of all places. Additionally, allows some
more `invoke`->`call` folds to happen (+110, +2.56%).
All in all, expectedly, this catches less things overall,
but all the motivational cases are still caught, so all good.
Apparently, we don't do this, neither in EarlyCSE, nor in InstSimplify,
nor in (old) GVN, but do in NewGVN and SimplifyCFG of all places..
While i could teach EarlyCSE how to hash PHI nodes,
we can't really do much (anything?) even if we find two identical
PHI nodes in different basic blocks, same-BB case is the interesting one,
and if we teach InstSimplify about it (which is what i wanted originally,
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86530), we get EarlyCSE support for free.
So i would think this is pretty uncontroversial.
On vanilla llvm test-suite + RawSpeed, this has the following effects:
```
| statistic name | baseline | proposed | Δ | % | \|%\| |
|----------------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-------:|---------:|---------:|
| instsimplify.NumPHICSE | 0 | 23779 | 23779 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| asm-printer.EmittedInsts | 7942328 | 7942392 | 64 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| assembler.ObjectBytes | 273069192 | 273084704 | 15512 | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| correlated-value-propagation.NumPhis | 18412 | 18539 | 127 | 0.69% | 0.69% |
| early-cse.NumCSE | 2183283 | 2183227 | -56 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| early-cse.NumSimplify | 550105 | 542090 | -8015 | -1.46% | 1.46% |
| instcombine.NumAggregateReconstructionsSimplified | 73 | 4506 | 4433 | 6072.60% | 6072.60% |
| instcombine.NumCombined | 3640264 | 3664769 | 24505 | 0.67% | 0.67% |
| instcombine.NumDeadInst | 1778193 | 1783183 | 4990 | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| instcount.NumCallInst | 1758401 | 1758799 | 398 | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| instcount.NumInvokeInst | 59478 | 59502 | 24 | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| instcount.NumPHIInst | 330557 | 330533 | -24 | -0.01% | 0.01% |
| instcount.TotalInsts | 8831952 | 8832286 | 334 | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| simplifycfg.NumInvokes | 4300 | 4410 | 110 | 2.56% | 2.56% |
| simplifycfg.NumSimpl | 1019808 | 999607 | -20201 | -1.98% | 1.98% |
```
I.e. it fires ~24k times, causes +110 (+2.56%) more `invoke` -> `call`
transforms, and counter-intuitively results in *more* instructions total.
That being said, the PHI count doesn't decrease that much,
and looking at some examples, it seems at least some of them
were previously getting PHI CSE'd in SimplifyCFG of all places..
I'm adjusting `Instruction::isIdenticalToWhenDefined()` at the same time.
As a comment in `InstCombinerImpl::visitPHINode()` already stated,
there are no guarantees on the ordering of the operands of a PHI node,
so if we just naively compare them, we may false-negatively say that
the nodes are not equal when the only difference is operand order,
which is especially important since the fold is in InstSimplify,
so we can't rely on InstCombine sorting them beforehand.
Fixing this for the general case is costly (geomean +0.02%),
and does not appear to catch anything in test-suite, but for
the same-BB case, it's trivial, so let's fix at least that.
As per http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=04879086b44348cad600a0a1ccbe1f7776cc3cf9&to=82bdedb888b945df1e9f130dd3ac4dd3c96e2925&stat=instructions
this appears to cause geomean +0.03% compile time increase (regression),
but geomean -0.01%..-0.04% code size decrease (improvement).
This implements 2 different vectorisation fallback strategies if tail-folding
fails: 1) don't vectorise at all, or 2) vectorise using a scalar epilogue. This
can be controlled with option -prefer-predicate-over-epilogue, that has been
changed to take a numeric value corresponding to the tail-folding preference
and preferred fallback.
Patch by: Pierre van Houtryve, Sjoerd Meijer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79783
MVE Gather scatter codegeneration is looking a lot better than it used
to, but still has some issues. The instructions we currently model as 1
cycle per element, which is a bit low for some cases. Increasing the
cost by the MVECostFactor brings them in-line with our other instruction
costs. This will have the effect of only generating then when the extra
benefit is more likely to overcome some of the issues. Notably in
running out of registers and vectorizing loops that could otherwise be
SLP vectorized.
In the short-term whilst we look at other ways of dealing with those
more directly, we can increase the costs of gathers to make them more
likely to be beneficial when created.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86444
The legacy LoopVectorize has a dependency on InjectTLIMappingsLegacy.
That cannot be expressed in the new PM since they are both normal
passes. Explicitly add -inject-tli-mappings as a pass.
Follow-up to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86492.
Reviewed By: spatel
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86561
This adapts LV to the new semantics of get.active.lane.mask as discussed in
D86147, which means that the LV now emits intrinsic get.active.lane.mask with
the loop tripcount instead of the backedge-taken count as its second argument.
The motivation for this is described in D86147.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86304
If gather/scatters are enabled, ARMTargetTransformInfo now allows
tail predication for loops with a much wider range of strides, up
to anything that is loop invariant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85410
As part of D84741, this adds a target hook for the
preferPredicatedReductionSelect option and makes use
of it under MVE, allowing us to tail predicate most
reduction loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85980
The normal scheme for tail folding reductions is to use:
loop:
p = phi(0, a)
mask = ...
x = masked_load(..., mask)
a = add(x, p)
s = select(mask, a, p)
This means we need to keep the register p and a alive out of the loop, plus
the mask. On a target with predicated operations we can instead generate
the phi as p = phi(0, s). This ensures the select in the loop and we can
fold select(m, add(a, b), c) to something like a vaddt c, a, b using the
m predicate. This in turn allows us to tail predicate the entire loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84741
D81345 appears to accidentally disables vectorization when explicitly
enabled. As PGSO isn't currently accessible from LoopAccessInfo, revert back to
the vectorization with versioning-for-unit-stride for PGSO.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85784
Arm MVE has multiple instructions such as VMLAVA.s8, which (in this
case) can take two 128bit vectors, sign extend the inputs to i32,
multiplying them together and sum the result into a 32bit general
purpose register. So taking 16 i8's as inputs, they can multiply and
accumulate the result into a single i32 without any rounding/truncating
along the way. There are also reduction instructions for plain integer
add and min/max, and operations that sum into a pair of 32bit registers
together treated as a 64bit integer (even though MVE does not have a
plain 64bit addition instruction). So giving the vectorizer the ability
to use these instructions both enables us to vectorize at higher
bitwidths, and to vectorize things we previously could not.
In order to do that we need a way to represent that the reduction
operation, specified with a llvm.experimental.vector.reduce when
vectorizing for Arm, occurs inside the loop not after it like most
reductions. This patch attempts to do that, teaching the vectorizer
about in-loop reductions. It does this through a vplan recipe
representing the reductions that the original chain of reduction
operations is replaced by. Cost modelling is currently just done through
a prefersInloopReduction TTI hook (which follows in a later patch).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75069
This reverts commit e9761688e41cb979a1fa6a79eb18145a75104933. It breaks the build:
```
~/src/llvm-project/llvm/lib/Analysis/IVDescriptors.cpp:868:10: error: no viable conversion from returned value of type 'SmallVector<[...], 8>' to function return type 'SmallVector<[...], 4>'
return ReductionOperations;
```
Arm MVE has multiple instructions such as VMLAVA.s8, which (in this
case) can take two 128bit vectors, sign extend the inputs to i32,
multiplying them together and sum the result into a 32bit general
purpose register. So taking 16 i8's as inputs, they can multiply and
accumulate the result into a single i32 without any rounding/truncating
along the way. There are also reduction instructions for plain integer
add and min/max, and operations that sum into a pair of 32bit registers
together treated as a 64bit integer (even though MVE does not have a
plain 64bit addition instruction). So giving the vectorizer the ability
to use these instructions both enables us to vectorize at higher
bitwidths, and to vectorize things we previously could not.
In order to do that we need a way to represent that the reduction
operation, specified with a llvm.experimental.vector.reduce when
vectorizing for Arm, occurs inside the loop not after it like most
reductions. This patch attempts to do that, teaching the vectorizer
about in-loop reductions. It does this through a vplan recipe
representing the reductions that the original chain of reduction
operations is replaced by. Cost modelling is currently just done through
a prefersInloopReduction TTI hook (which follows in a later patch).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75069
No widening decisions will be computed for instructions outside the
loop. Do not try to get a widening decision. The load/store will be just
a scalar load, so treating at as normal should be fine I think.
Fixes PR46950.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85087
If an analysis is actually invalidated, there's already a log statement
for that: 'Invalidating analysis: FooAnalysis'.
Otherwise the statement is not very useful.
Reviewed By: asbirlea, ychen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84981
This removes some unneeded block masks when we don't have any
reductions. It should not have any effect on codegen as the values
created are dead anyway.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81415
This patch uses the feature added in D79162 to fix the cost of a
sext/zext of a masked load, or a trunc for a masked store.
Previously, those were considered cheap or even free, but it's
not the case as we cannot split the load in the same way we would for
normal loads.
This updates the costs to better reflect reality, and adds a test for it
in test/Analysis/CostModel/ARM/cast.ll.
It also adds a vectorizer test that showcases the improvement: in some
cases, the vectorizer will now choose a smaller VF when
tail-predication is enabled, which results in better codegen. (Because
if it were to use a higher VF in those cases, the code we see above
would be generated, and the vmovs would block tail-predication later in
the process, resulting in very poor codegen overall)
Original Patch by Pierre van Houtryve
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79163
Summary: To match NewPM name. Also the new name is clearer and more consistent.
Subscribers: jvesely, nhaehnle, hiraditya, asbirlea, kerbowa, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84542
It was getting difficult to see which test was in which file, so this
reorganises the test files so that now all filenames start with tail-folding-*
followed by a more descriptive name what that group of tests check.
This patch enables the LoopVectorizer to build a phi of pointer
type and provide the vector loads and stores with vector type
getelementptrs built from the pointer induction variable, which
produces much less instructions than the previous approach of
creating scalar getelementpointers and glue them together to a
vector.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81267
If a vector body has live-out values, it is probably a reduction, which needs a
final reduction step after the loop. MVE has a VADDV instruction to reduce
integer vectors, but doesn't have an equivalent one for float vectors. A
live-out value that is not recognised as reduction later in the optimisation
pipeline will result in the tail-predicated loop to be reverted to a
non-predicated loop and this is very expensive, i.e. it has a significant
performance impact, which is what we hope to avoid with fine tuning the ARM TTI
hook preferPredicateOverEpilogue implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82953
This refactors option -disable-mve-tail-predication to take different arguments
so that we have 1 option to control tail-predication rather than several
different ones.
This is also a prep step for D82953, in which we want to reject reductions
unless that is requested with this option.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D83133
