This adjusts the MVE fp16 cost model, similar to how we already do for
integer casts. It uses the base cost of 1 per cvt for most fp extend /
truncates, but adjusts it for loads and stores where we know that a
extending load has been used to get the load into the correct lane, and
only an MVE VCVTB is then needed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81813
This alters getMemoryOpCost to use the Base TargetTransformInfo version
that includes some additional checks for whether extending loads are
legal. This will generally have the effect of making <2 x ..> and some
<4 x ..> loads/stores more expensive, which in turn should help favour
larger vector factors.
Notably it alters the cost of a <4 x half>, which with the current
codegen will be expensive if it is not extended.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82456
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
This emits new IR intrinsic @llvm.get.active.mask for tail-folded vectorised
loops if the intrinsic is supported by the backend, which is checked by
querying TargetTransform hook emitGetActiveLaneMask.
This intrinsic creates a mask representing active and inactive vector lanes,
which is used by the masked load/store instructions that are created for
tail-folded loops. The semantics of @llvm.get.active.mask are described here in
LangRef:
https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-get-active-lane-mask-intrinsics
This intrinsic is also used to provide a hint to the backend. That is, the
second argument of the intrinsic represents the back-edge taken count of the
loop. For MVE, for example, we use that to set up tail-predication, which is a
new form of predication in MVE for vector loops that implicitely predicates the
last vector loop iteration by implicitely setting active/inactive lanes, i.e.
the tail loop is predicated. In order to set up a tail-predicated vector loop,
we need to know the number of data elements processed by the vector loop, which
corresponds the the tripcount of the scalar loop, which we can now reconstruct
using @llvm.get.active.mask.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79100
Similar to a recent change to the X86 backend, this changes things so
that we always produce a reduction intrinsics for all reduction types,
not just the legal ones. This gives a better chance in the backend to
custom lower them to something more suitable for MVE. Especially for
something like fadd the in-order reduction produced during DAG lowering
is already better than the shuffles produced in the midend, and we can
do even better with a bit of custom lowering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D81398
This was reverted because of a miscompilation. At closer inspection, the
problem was actually visible in a changed llvm regression test too. This
one-line follow up fix/recommit will splat the IV, which is what we are trying
to avoid if unnecessary in general, if tail-folding is requested even if all
users are scalar instructions after vectorisation. Because with tail-folding,
the splat IV will be used by the predicate of the masked loads/stores
instructions. The previous version omitted this, which caused the
miscompilation. The original commit message was:
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
- Specifically check for sext/zext users which have 'long' form NEON
instructions.
- Add more entries to the table for sext/zexts so that we can report
more accurately the number of vmovls required for NEON.
- Pass the instruction to the pass implementation.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79561
If tail-folding of the scalar remainder loop is applied, the primary induction
variable is splat to a vector and used by the masked load/store vector
instructions, thus the IV does not remain scalar. Because we now mark
that the IV does not remain scalar for these cases, we don't emit the vector IV
if it is not used. Thus, the vectoriser produces less dead code.
Thanks to Ayal Zaks for the direction how to fix this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78911
D77635 added support to recognise primary induction variables for counting-down
loops. This allows us to fold the scalar tail loop into the main vector body,
which we need for MVE tail-predication. This adds some ARM tail-folding test
cases that we want to support.
This test was extracted from D76838, which implemented a different approach to
reverse and thus find a primary induction variable.
The codegen for splitting a llvm.vector.reduction intrinsic into parts
will be better than the codegen for the generic reductions. This will
only directly effect when vectorization factors are specified by the
user.
Also added tests to make sure the codegen for larger reductions is OK.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72257
Architecturally, it's allowed to have MVE-I without an FPU, thus
-mfpu=none should not disable MVE-I, or moves to/from FP-registers.
This patch removes `+/-fpregs` from features unconditionally added to
target feature list, depending on FPU and moves the logic to Clang
driver, where the negative form (`-fpregs`) is conditionally added to
the target features list for the cases of `-mfloat-abi=soft`, or
`-mfpu=none` without either `+mve` or `+mve.fp`. Only the negative
form is added by the driver, the positive one is derived from other
features in the backend.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71843
This addresses a vectorisation regression for tail-folded loops that are
counting down, e.g. loops as simple as this:
void foo(char *A, char *B, char *C, uint32_t N) {
while (N > 0) {
*C++ = *A++ + *B++;
N--;
}
}
These are loops that can be vectorised, but when tail-folding is requested, it
can't find a primary induction variable which we do need for predicating the
loop. As a result, the loop isn't vectorised at all, which it is able to do
when tail-folding is not attempted. So, this adds a check for the primary
induction variable where we decide how to lower the scalar epilogue. I.e., when
there isn't a primary induction variable, a scalar epilogue loop is allowed
(i.e. don't request tail-folding) so that vectorisation could still be
triggered.
Having this check for the primary induction variable make sense anyway, and in
addition, in a follow-up of this I will look into discovering earlier the
primary induction variable for counting down loops, so that this can also be
tail-folded.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72324
With the extra optimisations we have done, these should now be fine to
enable by default. Which is what this patch does.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70968
This attempts to teach the cost model in Arm that code such as:
%s = shl i32 %a, 3
%a = and i32 %s, %b
Can under Arm or Thumb2 become:
and r0, r1, r2, lsl #3
So the cost of the shift can essentially be free. To do this without
trying to artificially adjust the cost of the "and" instruction, it
needs to get the users of the shl and check if they are a type of
instruction that the shift can be folded into. And so it needs to have
access to the actual instruction in getArithmeticInstrCost, which if
available is added as an extra parameter much like getCastInstrCost.
We otherwise limit it to shifts with a single user, which should
hopefully handle most of the cases. The list of instruction that the
shift can be folded into include ADC, ADD, AND, BIC, CMP, EOR, MVN, ORR,
ORN, RSB, SBC and SUB. This translates to Add, Sub, And, Or, Xor and
ICmp.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70966
This adds some extra cost model tests for shifts, and does some minor
adjustments to some Neon code to make it clear as to what it applies to.
Both NFC.
Alas, using half the available vector registers in a single instruction
is just too much for the register allocator to handle. The mve-vldst4.ll
test here fails when these instructions are enabled at present. This
patch disables the generation of VLD4 and VST4 by adding a
mve-max-interleave-factor option, which we currently default to 2.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71109
Follow-up of cb47b8783: don't query TTI->preferPredicateOverEpilogue when
option -prefer-predicate-over-epilog is set to false, i.e. when we prefer not
to predicate the loop.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70382
Now that we have the intrinsics, we can add VLD2/4 and VST2/4 lowering
for MVE. This works the same way as Neon, recognising the load/shuffles
combination and converting them into intrinsics in a pre-isel pass,
which just calls getMaxSupportedInterleaveFactor, lowerInterleavedLoad
and lowerInterleavedStore.
The main difference to Neon is that we do not have a VLD3 instruction.
Otherwise most of the code works very similarly, with just some minor
differences in the form of the intrinsics to work around. VLD3 is
disabled by making isLegalInterleavedAccessType return false for those
cases.
We may need some other future adjustments, such as VLD4 take up half the
available registers so should maybe cost more. This patch should get the
basics in though.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69392
This is a follow up of d90804d, to also flag fmcp instructions as instructions
that we do not support in tail-predicated vector loops.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70295
The vectoriser queries TTI->preferPredicateOverEpilogue to determine if
tail-folding is preferred for a loop, but it was not respecting loop hint
'predicate' that can disable this, which has now been added. This showed that
we were incorrectly initialising loop hint 'vectorize.predicate.enable' with 0
(i.e. FK_Disabled) but this should have been FK_Undefined, which has been
fixed.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70125
This implements TTI hook 'preferPredicateOverEpilogue' for MVE. This is a
first version and it operates on single block loops only. With this change, the
vectoriser will now determine if tail-folding scalar remainder loops is
possible/desired, which is the first step to generate MVE tail-predicated
vector loops.
This is disabled by default for now. I.e,, this is depends on option
-disable-mve-tail-predication, which is off by default.
I will follow up on this soon with a patch for the vectoriser to respect loop
hint 'vectorize.predicate.enable'. I.e., with this loop hint set to Disabled,
we don't want to tail-fold and we shouldn't query this TTI hook, which is
done in D70125.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69845
We have two ways to steer creating a predicated vector body over creating a
scalar epilogue. To force this, we have 1) a command line option and 2) a
pragma available. This adds a third: a target hook to TargetTransformInfo that
can be queried whether predication is preferred or not, which allows the
vectoriser to make the decision without forcing it.
While this change behaves as a non-functional change for now, it shows the
required TTI plumbing, usage of this new hook in the vectoriser, and the
beginning of an ARM MVE implementation. I will follow up on this with:
- a complete MVE implementation, see D69845.
- a patch to disable this, i.e. we should respect "vector_predicate(disable)"
and its corresponding loophint.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69040
Add generic DAG combine for extending masked loads.
Allow us to generate sext/zext masked loads which can access v4i8,
v8i8 and v4i16 memory to produce v4i32, v8i16 and v4i32 respectively.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68337
llvm-svn: 375085
Now that the vectorizer can do tail-folding (rL367592), and the ARM backend
understands MVE masked loads/stores (rL371932), it's time to add the MVE
tail-folding equivalent of the X86 tests that I added.
llvm-svn: 371996
Masked loads and store fit naturally with MVE, the instructions being easily
predicated. This adds lowering for the simple cases of masked loads and stores.
It does not yet deal with widening/narrowing or pre/post inc, and so is
currently behind an option.
The llvm masked load intrinsic will accept a "passthru" value, dictating the
values used for the zero masked lanes. In MVE the instructions write 0 to the
zero predicated lanes, so we need to match a passthru that isn't 0 (or undef)
with a select instruction to pull in the correct data after the load.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67186
llvm-svn: 371932
We don't yet know how to generate these instructions for MVE. And in the case
of VLD3, we don't even have the instruction. For the moment don't tell the
vectoriser that we have VLD4, just to end up serialising the results.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66009
llvm-svn: 369101
With enough codegen complete, we can now correctly report the number and size
of vector registers for MVE, allowing auto vectorisation. This also allows FP
auto-vectorization for MVE without -Ofast/-ffast-math, due to support for IEEE
FP arithmetic and parity between scalar and vector FP behaviour.
Patch by David Sherwood.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D63728
llvm-svn: 368529
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
Summary:
This is a fix for PR23997.
The loop vectorizer is not preserving the inbounds property of GEPs that it creates.
This is inhibiting some optimizations. This patch preserves the inbounds property in
the case where a load/store is being fed by an inbounds GEP.
Reviewers: mkuper, javed.absar, hsaito
Reviewed By: hsaito
Subscribers: dcaballe, hsaito, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46191
llvm-svn: 331269
This is a slight reduction of one of the benchmarks
that suffered with D43079. Cost model changes should
not cause this test to remain scalarized.
llvm-svn: 326221
