As noted in D93229, the transform from scalar load to vector load
potentially leaks poison from the extra vector elements that are
being loaded.
We could use freeze here (and x86 codegen at least appears to be
the same either way), but we already have a shuffle in this logic
to optionally change the vector size, so let's allow that
instruction to serve both purposes.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93238
D82227 has added a proper check to limit PHI vectorization to the
maximum vector register size. That unfortunately resulted in at
least a couple of regressions on SystemZ and x86.
This change reverts PHI handling from D82227 and replaces it with
a more general check in SLPVectorizerPass::tryToVectorizeList().
Moved to tryToVectorizeList() it allows to restart vectorization
if initial chunk fails.
However, this function is more general and handles not only PHI
but everything which SLP handles. If vectorization factor would
be limited to maximum vector register size it would limit much
more vectorization than before leading to further regressions.
Therefore a new TTI callback getMaximumVF() is added with the
default 0 to preserve current behavior and limit nothing. Then
targets can decide what is better for them.
The callback gets ElementSize just like a similar getMinimumVF()
function and the main opcode of the chain. The latter is to avoid
regressions at least on the AMDGPU. We can have loads and stores
up to 128 bit wide, and <2 x 16> bit vector math on some
subtargets, where the rest shall not be vectorized. I.e. we need
to differentiate based on the element size and operation itself.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92059
This patch updates VPWidenMemoryInstructionRecipe to use VPDef
to manage the value it produces instead of inheriting from VPValue.
Reviewed By: gilr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90563
Vector element size could be different for different store chains.
This patch prevents wrong computation of maximum number of elements
for that case.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93192
When it comes to the scalar cost of any predicated block, the loop
vectorizer by default regards this predication as a sign that it is
looking at an if-conversion and divides the scalar cost of the block by
2, assuming it would only be executed half the time. This however makes
no sense if the predication has been introduced to tail predicate the
loop.
Original patch by Anna Welker
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86452
This is the first in a series of patches that attempts to migrate
existing cost instructions to return a new InstructionCost class
in place of a simple integer. This new class is intended to be
as light-weight and simple as possible, with a full range of
arithmetic and comparison operators that largely mirror the same
sets of operations on basic types, such as integers. The main
advantage to using an InstructionCost is that it can encode a
particular cost state in addition to a value. The initial
implementation only has two states - Normal and Invalid - but these
could be expanded over time if necessary. An invalid state can
be used to represent an unknown cost or an instruction that is
prohibitively expensive.
This patch adds the new class and changes the getInstructionCost
interface to return the new class. Other cost functions, such as
getUserCost, etc., will be migrated in future patches as I believe
this to be less disruptive. One benefit of this new class is that
it provides a way to unify many of the magic costs in the codebase
where the cost is set to a deliberately high number to prevent
optimisations taking place, e.g. vectorization. It also provides
a route to represent the extremely high, and unknown, cost of
scalarization of scalable vectors, which is not currently supported.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91174
This is an enhancement to load vectorization that is motivated by
a pattern in https://llvm.org/PR16739.
Unfortunately, it's still not enough to make a difference there.
We will have to handle multi-use cases in some better way to avoid
creating multiple overlapping loads.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92858
For stores chain vectorization we choose the size of vector
elements to ensure we fit to minimum and maximum vector register
size for the number of elements given. This patch corrects vector
element size choosing the width of value truncated just before
storing instead of the width of value stored.
Fixes PR46983
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92824
* Steps are scaled by `vscale`, a runtime value.
* Changes to circumvent the cost-model for now (temporary)
so that the cost-model can be implemented separately.
This can vectorize the following loop [1]:
void loop(int N, double *a, double *b) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(4, scalable)
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
a[i] = b[i] + 1.0;
}
}
[1] This source-level example is based on the pragma proposed
separately in D89031. This patch only implements the LLVM part.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91077
This patch removes a number of asserts that VF is not scalable, even though
the code where this assert lives does nothing that prevents VF being scalable.
Reviewed By: dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91060
It is possible to merge reuse and reorder shuffles and reduce the total
cost of the ivectorization tree/number of final instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92668
The initial step of the uniform-after-vectorization (lane-0 demanded only) analysis was very awkwardly written. It would revisit use list of each pointer operand of a widened load/store. As a result, it was in the worst case O(N^2) where N was the number of instructions in a loop, and had restricted operand Value types to reduce the size of use lists.
This patch replaces the original algorithm with one which is at most O(2N) in the number of instructions in the loop. (The key observation is that each use of a potentially interesting pointer is visited at most twice, once on first scan, once in the use list of *it's* operand. Only instructions within the loop have their uses scanned.)
In the process, we remove a restriction which required the operand of the uniform mem op to itself be an instruction. This allows detection of uniform mem ops involving global addresses.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92056
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
This might be a small improvement in readability, but the
real motivation is to make it easier to adapt the code to
deal with intrinsics like 'maxnum' and/or integer min/max.
There is potentially help in doing that with D92086, but
we might also just add specialized wrappers here to deal
with the expected patterns.
In this patch I have added support for a new loop hint called
vectorize.scalable.enable that says whether we should enable scalable
vectorization or not. If a user wants to instruct the compiler to
vectorize a loop with scalable vectors they can now do this as
follows:
br i1 %exitcond, label %for.end, label %for.body, !llvm.loop !2
...
!2 = !{!2, !3, !4}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.width", i32 8}
!4 = !{!"llvm.loop.vectorize.scalable.enable", i1 true}
Setting the hint to false simply reverts the behaviour back to the
default, using fixed width vectors.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88962
This is yet another attempt at providing support for epilogue
vectorization following discussions raised in RFC http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Proposal-RFC-Epilog-loop-vectorization-tt106322.html#none
and reviews D30247 and D88819.
Similar to D88819, this patch achieve epilogue vectorization by
executing a single vplan twice: once on the main loop and a second
time on the epilogue loop (using a different VF). However it's able
to handle more loops, and generates more optimal control flow for
cases where the trip count is too small to execute any code in vector
form.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D89566
In the following loop the dependence distance is 2 and can only be
vectorized if the vector length is no larger than this.
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize(enable) vectorize_width(4)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i) {
a[i + 2] = a[i] + b[i];
}
}
However, when specifying a VF of 4 via a loop hint this loop is
vectorized. According to [1][2], loop hints are ignored if the
optimization is not safe to apply.
This patch introduces a check to bail of vectorization if the user
specified VF is greater than the maximum feasible VF, unless explicitly
forced with '-force-vector-width=X'.
[1] https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-loop-vectorize-and-llvm-loop-interleave
[2] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#extensions-for-loop-hint-optimizations
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90687
This patch replaces the attribute `unsigned VF` in the class
IntrinsicCostAttributes by `ElementCount VF`.
This is a non-functional change to help upcoming patches to compute the cost
model for scalable vector inside this class.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91532
Instruction ExtractValue wasn't handled in
LoopVectorizationCostModel::getInstructionCost(). As a result, it was modeled
as a mul which is not really accurate. Since it is free (most of the times),
this now gets a cost of 0 using getInstructionCost.
This is a follow-up of D92208, that required changing this regression test.
In a follow up I will look at InsertValue which also isn't handled yet.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92317
VPPredInstPHIRecipe is one of the recipes that was missed during the
initial conversion. This patch adjusts the recipe to also manage its
operand using VPUser.
Interleave groups also depend on the values they store. Manage the
stored values as VPUser operands. This is currently a NFC, but is
required to allow VPlan transforms and to manage generated vector values
exclusively in VPTransformState.
Update VPReplicateRecipe to inherit from VPValue. This still does not
update scalarizeInstruction to set the result for the VPValue of
VPReplicateRecipe, because this first requires tracking scalar values in
VPTransformState.
Reviewed By: reames
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91500
MaxSafeRegisterWidth is a misnomer since it actually returns the maximum
safe vector width. Register suggests it relates directly to a physical
register where it could be a vector spanning one or more physical
registers.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91727
This is a follow-up to 00a6601136 to make
isa<VPReductionRecipe> work and unifies the VPValue ID names, by making
sure they all consistently start with VPV*.
Similar to other patches, this makes VPWidenRecipe a VPValue. Because of
the way it interacts with the reduction code it also slightly alters the
way that VPValues are registered, removing the up front NeedDef and
using getOrAddVPValue to create them on-demand if needed instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88447
This converts the VPReductionRecipe into a VPValue, like other
VPRecipe's in preparation for traversing def-use chains. It also makes
it a VPUser, now storing the used VPValues as operands.
It doesn't yet change how the VPReductionRecipes are created. It will
need to call replaceAllUsesWith from the original recipe they replace,
but that is not done yet as VPWidenRecipe need to be created first.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88382
Some older code - and code copied from older code - still directly tested against the singelton result of SE::getCouldNotCompute. Using the isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute> form is both shorter, and more readable.
Fix PR47390.
The primary induction should be considered alive when folding tail by masking,
because it will be used by said masking; even when it may otherwise appear
useless: feeding only its own 'bump', which is correctly considered dead, and
as the 'bump' of another induction variable, which may wrongfully want to
consider its bump = the primary induction, dead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D92017
A uniform load is one which loads from a uniform address across all lanes. As currently implemented, we cost model such loads as if we did a single scalar load + a broadcast, but the actual lowering replicates the load once per lane.
This change tweaks the lowering to use the REPLICATE strategy by marking such loads (and the computation leading to their memory operand) as uniform after vectorization. This is a useful change in itself, but it's real purpose is to pave the way for a following change which will generalize our uniformity logic.
In review discussion, there was an issue raised with coupling cost modeling with the lowering strategy for uniform inputs. The discussion on that item remains unsettled and is pending larger architectural discussion. We decided to move forward with this patch as is, and revise as warranted once the bigger picture design questions are settled.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91398
This change introduces a new IR intrinsic named `llvm.pseudoprobe` for pseudo-probe block instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story.
A pseudo probe is used to collect the execution count of the block where the probe is instrumented. This requires a pseudo probe to be persisting. The LLVM PGO instrumentation also instruments in similar places by placing a counter in the form of atomic read/write operations or runtime helper calls. While these operations are very persisting or optimization-resilient, in theory we can borrow the atomic read/write implementation from PGO counters and cut it off at the end of compilation with all the atomics converted into binary data. This was our initial design and we’ve seen promising sample correlation quality with it. However, the atomics approach has a couple issues:
1. IR Optimizations are blocked unexpectedly. Those atomic instructions are not going to be physically present in the binary code, but since they are on the IR till very end of compilation, they can still prevent certain IR optimizations and result in lower code quality.
2. The counter atomics may not be fully cleaned up from the code stream eventually.
3. Extra work is needed for re-targeting.
We choose to implement pseudo probes based on a special LLVM intrinsic, which is expected to have most of the semantics that comes with an atomic operation but does not block desired optimizations as much as possible. More specifically the semantics associated with the new intrinsic enforces a pseudo probe to be virtually executed exactly the same number of times before and after an IR optimization. The intrinsic also comes with certain flags that are carefully chosen so that the places they are probing are not going to be messed up by the optimizer while most of the IR optimizations still work. The core flags given to the special intrinsic is `IntrInaccessibleMemOnly`, which means the intrinsic accesses memory and does have a side effect so that it is not removable, but is does not access memory locations that are accessible by any original instructions. This way the intrinsic does not alias with any original instruction and thus it does not block optimizations as much as an atomic operation does. We also assign a function GUID and a block index to an intrinsic so that they are uniquely identified and not merged in order to achieve good correlation quality.
Let's now look at an example. Given the following LLVM IR:
```
define internal void @foo2(i32 %x, void (i32)* %f) !dbg !4 {
bb0:
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 0
br i1 %cmp, label %bb1, label %bb2
bb1:
br label %bb3
bb2:
br label %bb3
bb3:
ret void
}
```
The instrumented IR will look like below. Note that each `llvm.pseudoprobe` intrinsic call represents a pseudo probe at a block, of which the first parameter is the GUID of the probe’s owner function and the second parameter is the probe’s ID.
```
define internal void @foo2(i32 %x, void (i32)* %f) !dbg !4 {
bb0:
%cmp = icmp eq i32 %x, 0
call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 837061429793323041, i64 1)
br i1 %cmp, label %bb1, label %bb2
bb1:
call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 837061429793323041, i64 2)
br label %bb3
bb2:
call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 837061429793323041, i64 3)
br label %bb3
bb3:
call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 837061429793323041, i64 4)
ret void
}
```
Reviewed By: wmi
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86490
rGf571fe6df585127d8b045f8e8f5b4e59da9bbb73 led to a warning of an unused
variable for MaxSafeDepDist (written but not used). It seems this
variable and assignment can be safely removed.
The assertion that vector widths are <= 256 elements was hard wired in the LV code. Eg, VE allows for vectors up to 512 elements. Test again the TTI vector register bit width instead - this is an NFC for non-asserting builds.
Reviewed By: fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91518
This patch introduces a new VPDef class, which can be used to
manage VPValues defined by recipes/VPInstructions.
The idea here is to mirror VPUser for values defined by a recipe. A
VPDef can produce either zero (e.g. a store recipe), one (most recipes)
or multiple (VPInterleaveRecipe) result VPValues.
To traverse the def-use chain from a VPDef to its users, one has to
traverse the users of all values defined by a VPDef.
VPValues now contain a pointer to their corresponding VPDef, if one
exists. To traverse the def-use chain upwards from a VPValue, we first
need to check if the VPValue is defined by a VPDef. If it does not have
a VPDef, this means we have a VPValue that is not directly defined
iniside the plan and we are done.
If we have a VPDef, it is defined inside the region by a recipe, which
is a VPUser, and the upwards def-use chain traversal continues by
traversing all its operands.
Note that we need to add an additional field to to VPVAlue to link them
to their defs. The space increase is going to be offset by being able to
remove the SubclassID field in future patches.
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90558
