| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
As noted on D59710 we weren't handling the high costs of these operations on SLM.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I can't see any notable differences in costs between SSE2 and SSE42 arches for FADD/ADD reduction, so I've lowered the target to just SSE2.
I've also added vXi8 sum reduction costs in line with the PSADBW codegen and discussions on PR42674.
llvm-svn: 374655
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
arithmetic or min/max reduction
This is split from D55452 with the correct patch this time.
Pairwise reductions require two shuffles on every level but the last. On the last level the two shuffles are <1, u, u, u...> and <0, u, u, u...>, but <0, u, u, u...> will be dropped by InstCombine/DAGCombine as being an identity shuffle.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55615
llvm-svn: 349072
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
getArithmeticReductionCost/getMinMaxReductionCost
We were overcounting the number of arithmetic operations needed at each level before we reach a legal type. We were using the full vector type for that level, but we are going to split the input vector at that level in half. So the effective arithmetic operation cost at that level is half the width.
So for example on 8i32 on an sse target. Were were calculating the cost of an 8i32 op which is likely 2 for basic integer. Then after the loop we count 2 more v4i32 ops. For a total arith cost of 4. But if you look at the assembly there would only be 3 arithmetic ops.
There are still more bugs in this code that I'm going to work on next. The non pairwise code shouldn't count extract subvectors in the loop. There are no extracts, the types are split in registers. For pairwise we need to use 2 two src permute shuffles.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55397
llvm-svn: 348621
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(REAPPLIED)
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Rebased and reapplied after being reverted in rL347541 due to PR39774 - which was fixed by D54955/rL347759 and D55017/rL347997
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 348076
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
cost"
This reverts commit r346970.
It was causing PR39774, a crash in slp-vectorizer on a rather simple loop
with just a bunch of 'and's in the body.
llvm-svn: 347541
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We were adding the entire scalarization extraction cost for reductions, which returns the total cost of extracting every element of a vector type.
For reductions we don't need to do this - we just need to extract the 0'th element after the reduction pattern has completed.
Fixes PR37731
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54585
llvm-svn: 346970
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
start of the source vector
llvm-svn: 346538
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Correct costings of SK_ExtractSubvector requires the SubTy argument to indicate the type/size of the extracted subvector.
Unlike the rest of the shuffle kinds this means that the main Ty argument represents the source vector type not the destination!
I've done my best to fix a number of vectorizer uses:
SLP - the reduction epilogue costs should be using a SK_PermuteSingleSrc shuffle as these all occur at the hardware vector width - we're not extracting (illegal) subvector types. This is causing the cost model diffs as SK_ExtractSubvector costs are poorly handled and tend to just return 1 at the moment.
LV - I'm not clear on what the SK_ExtractSubvector should represents for recurrences - I've used a <1 x ?> subvector extraction as that seems to match the VF delta.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53573
llvm-svn: 345617
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
These were being over cautious for costs for one/two op general shuffles - VSHUFPD doesn't have to replicate the same shuffle in both lanes like VSHUFPS does.
llvm-svn: 335216
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As discussed on D47985, identity shuffle masks should probably be free.
I've limited this to the case where the input and output types all match - but we could probably accept all cases.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47986
llvm-svn: 334506
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
update_analyze_test_checks.py
NOTE: We're only really interested in the extractelement cost (which represents the entire reduction).
llvm-svn: 329504
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are too many perf regressions resulting from this, so we need to
investigate (and add tests for) targets like ARM and AArch64 before
trying to reinstate.
llvm-svn: 325658
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This change was mentioned at least as far back as:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26837#c26
...and I found a real program that is harmed by this:
Himeno running on AMD Jaguar gets 6% slower with SLP vectorization:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36280
...but the change here appears to solve that bug only accidentally.
The div/rem costs for x86 look very wrong in some cases, but that's already true,
so we can fix those in follow-up patches. There's also evidence that more cost model
changes are needed to solve SLP problems as shown in D42981, but that's an independent
problem (though the solution may be adjusted after this change is made).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D43079
llvm-svn: 325515
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Currently when cost of scalar operations is evaluated the vector type is
used for scalar operations. Patch fixes this issue and fixes evaluation
of the vector operations cost.
Several test showed that vector cost model is too optimistic. It
allowed vectorization of 8 or less add/fadd operations, though scalar
code is faster. Actually, only for 16 or more operations vector code
provides better performance.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26277
llvm-svn: 288398
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 288377
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit a61718435fc4118c82f8aa6133fd81f803789c1e.
llvm-svn: 288371
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 288369
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
multiple registers
Currently in LLVM's cost model, a vectorized arithmetic instruction will have
high cost if its type is split into multiple registers. However, this
punishment is too heavy and unnecessary. The overhead of the split should not
be on arithmetic instructions but instructions that implement the split. Note
that during vectorization we have calculated the register pressure, and we
only choose proper interleaving factor (and also vectorization factor) so
that we don't use more registers than the maximum number.
Here is a very simple example: if a vadd has the cost 1, and if we double VF
so that we need two registers to perform it, then its cost will become 4 with
the current implementation, which will prevent us to use larger VF.
Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15159
llvm-svn: 254671
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 191021
|
|
|
Upcoming SLP vectorization improvements will want to be able to estimate costs
of horizontal reductions. Add infrastructure to support this.
We model reductions as a series of (shufflevector,add) tuples ultimately
followed by an extractelement. For example, for an add-reduction of <4 x float>
we could generate the following sequence:
(v0, v1, v2, v3)
\ \ / /
\ \ /
+ +
(v0+v2, v1+v3, undef, undef)
\ /
((v0+v2) + (v1+v3), undef, undef)
%rdx.shuf = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 2, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx = fadd <4 x float> %rdx, %rdx.shuf
%rdx.shuf7 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx8 = fadd <4 x float> %bin.rdx, %rdx.shuf7
%r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx8, i32 0
This commit adds a cost model interface "getReductionCost(Opcode, Ty, Pairwise)"
that will allow clients to ask for the cost of such a reduction (as backends
might generate more efficient code than the cost of the individual instructions
summed up). This interface is excercised by the CostModel analysis pass which
looks for reduction patterns like the one above - starting at extractelements -
and if it sees a matching sequence will call the cost model interface.
We will also support a second form of pairwise reduction that is well supported
on common architectures (haddps, vpadd, faddp).
(v0, v1, v2, v3)
\ / \ /
(v0+v1, v2+v3, undef, undef)
\ /
((v0+v1)+(v2+v3), undef, undef, undef)
%rdx.shuf.0.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 2 , i32 undef, i32 undef>
%rdx.shuf.0.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx.0 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.0.0, %rdx.shuf.0.1
%rdx.shuf.1.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%rdx.shuf.1.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
<4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
%bin.rdx.1 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.1.0, %rdx.shuf.1.1
%r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx.1, i32 0
llvm-svn: 190876
|
