Addition of this pass has been botched.
There is no particular reason why it had to be sold as an inseparable part
of new-pm transition. It was added when old-pm was still the default,
and very *very* few users were actually tracking new-pm,
so it's effects weren't measured.
Which means, some of the turnoil of the new-pm transition
are actually likely regressions due to this pass.
Likewise, there has been a number of post-commit feedback
(post new-pm switch), namely
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787157 (regresses HW-loops)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D37467#2787259 (should not be in middle-end, should run after LSR, not before)
* https://reviews.llvm.org/D95789 (an attempt to fix bad loop backedge metadata)
and in the half year past, the pass authors (google) still haven't found time to respond to any of that.
Hereby it is proposed to backout the pass from the pipeline,
until someone who cares about it can address the issues reported,
and properly start the process of adding a new pass into the pipeline,
with proper performance evaluation.
Furthermore, neither google nor facebook reports any perf changes
from this change, so i'm dropping the pass completely.
It can always be re-reverted should/if anyone want to pick it up again.
Reviewed By: aeubanks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104099
Turns out simplifyLoopIVs sometimes returns a non-dead instruction in it's DeadInsts out param. I had done a bit of NFC cleanup which was only NFC if simplifyLoopIVs obeyed it's documentation. I'm simplfy dropping that part of the change.
Commit message from try 3:
Recommitting after fixing a bug found post commit. Amusingly, try 1 had been correct, and by reverting to incorporate last minute review feedback, I introduce the bug. Oops. :)
Original commit message:
The problem was that recursively deleting an instruction can delete instructions beyond the current iterator (via a dead phi), thus invalidating iteration. Test case added in LoopUnroll/dce.ll to cover this case.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
Recommitting after fixing a bug found post commit. Amusingly, try 1 had been correct, and by reverting to incorporate last minute review feedback, I introduce the bug. Oops. :)
The problem was that recursively deleting an instruction can delete instructions beyond the current iterator (via a dead phi), thus invalidating iteration. Test case added in LoopUnroll/dce.ll to cover this case.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
Recommitting after addressing a missed review comment, and updating an aarch64 test I'd missed.
LoopUnroll does a limited DCE pass after unrolling, but if you have a chain of dead instructions, it only deletes the last one. Improve the code to recursively delete all trivially dead instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102511
At the moment, getMemoryOpCost returns 1 for all inputs if CostKind is
CodeSize or SizeAndLatency. This fools LoopUnroll into thinking memory
operations on large vectors have a cost of one, even if they will get
expanded to a large number of memory operations in the backend.
This patch updates getMemoryOpCost to return the cost for the type
legalization for both CodeSize and SizeAndLatency. This should more
accurately reflect the number of memory operations required.
I am not sure how latency should properly be included in SizeAndLatency
from the description, but returning the size cost should be clearly more
accurate.
This does not cause any binary changes when building
MultiSource/SPEC2000/SPEC2006 with -O3 -flto for AArch64, likely because
large vector memops are not really formed by code emitted from Clang.
But using the C/C++ matrix extension can easily result in code with very
large vector operations directly from Clang, e.g.
https://clang.godbolt.org/z/6xzxcTGvb
Reviewed By: samparker
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100291
See discussion in D90554.
This is a partial un-revert of 32dd5870ee31. I'm adding
back the baseline tests first, so we don't have to
back-track as much in case there are still problems.
as it's causing crashes in the optimizer. A reduced testcase has been posted as a follow-up.
This reverts commit f7eac51b9b3f780c96ca41913293851c5acb465b.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] make default size cost for libcalls small (again)" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 8ec7ea3ddce7379e13e8dfb4a5260a6d2004aa1c.
Temporarily Revert "[CostModel] add tests for math library calls; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit df09f825995b10da03f148133c119f52c94fd6e4.
Temporarily Revert "[LoopUnroll] add test for full unroll that is sensitive to cost-model; NFC" as it depends upon the primary revert.
This reverts commit 618d555e8d926a83161774df2035519c387269db.
This was changed recently with D90554 / f7eac51b9b3f
...because we had a regression testing blindspot for intrinsics
that are expected to be lowered to libcalls.
In general, we want the *size* cost for a scalar call to be cheap
even if the other costs are expensive - we expect it to just be
a branch with some optional stack manipulation.
It is likely that we will want to carve out some
exceptions/overrides to this rule as follow-up patches for
calls that have some general and/or target-specific difference
to the expected lowering.
This was noticed as a regression in unrolling, so we have a test
for that now along with a couple of direct cost model tests.
If the assumed scalarization costs for the oversized vector
calls are not realistic, that would be another follow-up
refinement of the cost models.
We use `< UP.Threshold` later on, so we should use LoopSize + 1, to
allow unrolling if the result won't exceed to loop size.
Fixes PR43305.
Reviewers: efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67594
llvm-svn: 372084
Summary:
In the following cases, unrolling can be beneficial, even when
optimizing for code size:
1) very low trip counts
2) potential to constant fold most instructions after fully unrolling.
We can unroll in those cases, by setting the unrolling threshold to the
loop size. This might highlight some cost modeling issues and fixing
them will have a positive impact in general.
Reviewers: vsk, efriedma, dmgreen, paquette
Reviewed By: paquette
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60265
llvm-svn: 358586
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Reappy r284044 after revert in r284051. Krzysztof fixed the error in r284049.
The original summary:
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
llvm-svn: 284053
This patch tries to fully unroll loops having break statement like this
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
if (a[i] == value) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
GCC can fully unroll such loops, but currently LLVM cannot because LLVM only
supports loops having exact constant trip counts.
The upper bound of the trip count can be obtained from calling
ScalarEvolution::getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(). Part of the patch is the
refactoring work in SCEV to prevent duplicating code.
The feature of using the upper bound is enabled under the same circumstance
when runtime unrolling is enabled since both are used to unroll loops without
knowing the exact constant trip count.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24790
llvm-svn: 284044
As agreed in post-commit review of r265388, I'm switching the flag to
its original value until the 90% runtime performance regression on
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Stanford/Bubblesort is addressed.
llvm-svn: 277524
Summary:
It is incorrect to compare TripCount (which is BECount + 1)
with extraiters (or Count) to check if we should enter unrolled
loop or not, because TripCount can potentially overflow
(when BECount is max unsigned integer).
While comparing BECount with (Count - 1) is overflow safe and
therefore correct.
Reviewer: hfinkel
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19256
From: Evgeny Stupachenko <evstupac@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 267662
For inner one of nested loops, it is more likely to be a hot loop,
and the runtime check can be promoted out from patch 0001, so the
overhead is less, we can try a doubled threshold to unroll more loops.
llvm-svn: 231632
