This is a follow-up for https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119110
and a fix for https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/118450
RemoveDeadValues used to delete Values and analyzing the IR at the same
time, because of that, `isMemoryEffectFree` got invalid IR with
half-deleted linalg.generic operation. This PR separates analysis and
cleanup to prevent such situation.
Thank you!
---------
Co-authored-by: Renat Idrisov <parsifal-47@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Andrzej Warzyński <andrzej.warzynski@gmail.com>
Fixing RemoveDeadValues to properly remove arguments from
BranchOpInterface operations.
This is a follow-up for:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117405
cc: @joker-eph @codemzs
---------
Co-authored-by: Renat Idrisov <parsifal-47@users.noreply.github.com>
This PR fixes a bug in `RemoveDeadValues` where the
`FunctionOpInterface` does not have the `isDeclaration` method. As a
result, we should use the `isExternal` method instead. Fixes#116347.
This change removes the restriction on `SymbolUserOpInterface` operators
so they can be used with operators that implement `SymbolOpInterface`,
example:
`memref.global` implements `SymbolOpInterface` so it can be used with
`memref.get_global` which implements `SymbolUserOpInterface`
```
// Define a global constant array
memref.global "private" constant @global_array : memref<10xi32> = dense<[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]> : tensor<10xi32>
// Access this global constant within a function
func @use_global() {
%0 = memref.get_global @global_array : memref<10xi32>
}
```
Reference: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116519 and
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/question-on-criteria-for-acceptable-ir-in-removedeadvaluespass/83131
---------
Co-authored-by: Zeeshan Siddiqui <mzs@ntdev.microsoft.com>
This change is related to discussion:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/question-on-criteria-for-acceptable-ir-in-removedeadvaluespass/83131
I do not know the original reason to disallow the optimization on
modules with global private constant. Please let me know what am I
missing, I will be happy to make it better. Thank you!
CC: @Wheest
---------
Co-authored-by: Renat Idrisov <parsifal-47@users.noreply.github.com>
Fixes#107870.
We can allow the enclosing Module operation to have a symbol.
The check was likely originally not considering this case and intended
to catch symbols inside the region, not accounting that the walk would
visit the enclosing operation.
This commit fixes an error in the `RemoveDeadValues` pass that is
associated with its incorrect usage of the `cloneInto()` function.
The `setOperands()` function that is used by the `cloneInto()` function
requires all operands to not be null. But, that is not possible in this
pass because we drop uses of dead values, thus making them null. It is
only at the end of the pass that we are assured that such null values
won't exist but during the execution of the pass, there could be null
values.
To fix this, we replace the usage of the `cloneInto()` function to copy
a region with `moveBlock()` to move each block of the region one by one.
This function does not require the presence of non-null values and is
thus the right choice here. This implementation is also more opttimized
because we are moving things instead of copying them. The goal was
always moving.
Signed-off-by: Srishti Srivastava <srishtisrivastava.ai@gmail.com>
Reviewed By: srishti-pm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158941
Large deep learning models rely on heavy computations. However, not
every computation is necessary. And, even when a computation is
necessary, it helps if the values needed for the computation are
available in registers (which have low-latency) rather than being in
memory (which has high-latency).
Compilers can use liveness analysis to:-
(1) Remove extraneous computations from a program before it executes on
hardware, and,
(2) Optimize register allocation.
Both these tasks help achieve one very important goal: reducing runtime.
Recently, liveness analysis was added to MLIR. Thus, this commit uses
the recently added liveness analysis utility to try to accomplish task
(1).
It adds a pass called `remove-dead-values` whose goal is
optimization (reducing runtime) by removing unnecessary instructions.
Unlike other passes that rely on local information gathered from
patterns to accomplish optimization, this pass uses a full analysis of
the IR, specifically, liveness analysis, and is thus more powerful.
Currently, this pass performs the following optimizations:
(A) Removes function arguments that are not live,
(B) Removes function return values that are not live across all callers of
the function,
(C) Removes unneccesary operands, results, region arguments, region
terminator operands of region branch ops, and,
(D) Removes simple and region branch ops that have all non-live results and
don't affect memory in any way,
iff
the IR doesn't have any non-function symbol ops, non-call symbol user ops
and branch ops.
Here, a "simple op" refers to an op that isn't a symbol op, symbol-user op,
region branch op, branch op, region branch terminator op, or return-like.
It is noteworthy that we do not refer to non-live values as "dead" in this
file to avoid confusing it with dead code analysis's "dead", which refers to
unreachable code (code that never executes on hardware) while "non-live"
refers to code that executes on hardware but is unnecessary. Thus, while the
removal of dead code helps little in reducing runtime, removing non-live
values should theoretically have significant impact (depending on the amount
removed).
It is also important to note that unlike other passes (like `canonicalize`)
that apply op-specific optimizations through patterns, this pass uses
different interfaces to handle various types of ops and tries to cover all
existing ops through these interfaces.
It is because of its reliance on (a) liveness analysis and (b) interfaces
that makes it so powerful that it can optimize ops that don't have a
canonicalizer and even when an op does have a canonicalizer, it can perform
more aggressive optimizations, as observed in the test files associated with
this pass.
Example of optimization (A):-
```
int add_2_to_y(int x, int y) {
return 2 + y
}
print(add_2_to_y(3, 4))
print(add_2_to_y(5, 6))
```
becomes
```
int add_2_to_y(int y) {
return 2 + y
}
print(add_2_to_y(4))
print(add_2_to_y(6))
```
Example of optimization (B):-
```
int, int get_incremented_values(int y) {
store y somewhere in memory
return y + 1, y + 2
}
y1, y2 = get_incremented_values(4)
y3, y4 = get_incremented_values(6)
print(y2)
```
becomes
```
int get_incremented_values(int y) {
store y somewhere in memory
return y + 2
}
y2 = get_incremented_values(4)
y4 = get_incremented_values(6)
print(y2)
```
Example of optimization (C):-
Assume only `%result1` is live here. Then,
```
%result1, %result2, %result3 = scf.while (%arg1 = %operand1, %arg2 = %operand2) {
%terminator_operand2 = add %arg2, %arg2
%terminator_operand3 = mul %arg2, %arg2
%terminator_operand4 = add %arg1, %arg1
scf.condition(%terminator_operand1) %terminator_operand2, %terminator_operand3, %terminator_operand4
} do {
^bb0(%arg3, %arg4, %arg5):
%terminator_operand6 = add %arg4, %arg4
%terminator_operand5 = add %arg5, %arg5
scf.yield %terminator_operand5, %terminator_operand6
}
```
becomes
```
%result1, %result2 = scf.while (%arg2 = %operand2) {
%terminator_operand2 = add %arg2, %arg2
%terminator_operand3 = mul %arg2, %arg2
scf.condition(%terminator_operand1) %terminator_operand2, %terminator_operand3
} do {
^bb0(%arg3, %arg4):
%terminator_operand6 = add %arg4, %arg4
scf.yield %terminator_operand6
}
```
It is interesting to see that `%result2` won't be removed even though it is
not live because `%terminator_operand3` forwards to it and cannot be
removed. And, that is because it also forwards to `%arg4`, which is live.
Example of optimization (D):-
```
int square_and_double_of_y(int y) {
square = y ^ 2
double = y * 2
return square, double
}
sq, do = square_and_double_of_y(5)
print(do)
```
becomes
```
int square_and_double_of_y(int y) {
double = y * 2
return double
}
do = square_and_double_of_y(5)
print(do)
```
Signed-off-by: Srishti Srivastava <srishtisrivastava.ai@gmail.com>
Reviewed By: matthiaskramm, Mogball, jcai19
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D157049
