| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Update MSSA for blocks cloned when doing partial unswitching.
Enable additional testing with MSSA.
Resolves PR43641.
llvm-svn: 374850
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch enables passing options to SimpleLoopUnswitch via the passes pipeline.
Reviewers: chandlerc, fedor.sergeev, leonardchan, philip.pfaffe
Reviewed By: fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60676
llvm-svn: 358880
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
Teach SimpleLoopUnswitch to preserve MemorySSA.
Subscribers: sanjoy, jlebar, Prazek, george.burgess.iv, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47022
llvm-svn: 348263
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
invariants with constants
When partial unswitch operates on multiple conditions at once, .e.g:
if (Cond1 || Cond2 || NonInv) ...
it should infer (and replace) values for individual conditions only on one
side of unswitch and not another.
More precisely only these derivations hold true:
(Cond1 || Cond2) == false => Cond1 == Cond2 == false
(Cond1 && Cond2) == true => Cond1 == Cond2 == true
By the way we organize unswitching it means only replacing on "continue" blocks
and never on "unswitched" ones. Since trivial unswitch does not have "unswitched"
blocks it does not have this problem.
Fixes PR 39568.
Reviewers: chandlerc, asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54211
llvm-svn: 346350
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
switch unswitching.
The core problem was that the way we handled unswitching trivial exit
edges through the default successor of a switch. For some reason
I thought the right way to do this was to add a block containing
unreachable and point the default successor at this block. In
retrospect, this has an amazing number of problems.
The first issue is the one that this pass has always worked around -- we
have to *detect* such edges and avoid unswitching them again. This
seemed pretty easy really. You juts look for an edge to a block
containing unreachable. However, this pattern is woefully unsound. So
many things can break it. The amazing thing is that I found a test case
where *simple-loop-unswitch itself* breaks this! When we do
a *non-trivial* unswitch of a switch we will end up splitting this exit
edge. The result will be a default successor that is an exit and
terminates in ... a perfectly normal branch. So the first test case that
I started trying to fix is added to the nontrivial test cases. This is
a ridiculous example that did just amazing things previously. With just
unswitch, it would create 10+ copies of this stuff stamped out. But if
you combine it *just right* with a bunch of other passes (like
simplify-cfg, loop rotate, and some LICM) you can get it to do this
infinitely. Or at least, I never got it to finish. =[
This, in turn, uncovered another related issue. When we are manipulating
these switches after doing a trivial unswitch we never correctly updated
PHI nodes to reflect our edits. As soon as I started changing how these
edges were managed, it became obvious there were more issues that
I couldn't realistically leave unaddressed, so I wrote more test cases
around PHI updates here and ensured all of that works now.
And this, in turn, required some adjustment to how we collect and manage
the exit successor when it is the default successor. That showed a clear
bug where we failed to include it in our search for the outer-most loop
reached by an unswitched exit edge. This was actually already tested and
the test case didn't work. I (wrongly) thought that was due to SCEV
failing to analyze the switch. In fact, it was just a simple bug in the
code that skipped the default successor. While changing this, I handled
it correctly and have updated the test to reflect that we now get
precise SCEV analysis of trip counts for the outer loop in one of these
cases.
llvm-svn: 336646
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
r335553 with the non-trivial unswitching of switches.
The code correctly updated most aspects of the CFG and analyses, but
missed some crucial aspects:
1) When multiple cases have the same successor, we unswitch that
a single time and replace the switch with a direct branch. The CFG
here is correct, but the target of this direct branch may have had
a PHI node with multiple entries in it.
2) When we still have to clone a successor of the switch into an
unswitched copy of the loop, we'll delete potentially multiple edges
entering this successor, not just one.
3) We also have to delete multiple edges entering the successors in the
original loop when they have to be retained.
4) When the "retained successor" *also* occurs as a case successor, we
just assert failed everywhere. This doesn't happen very easily
because its always valid to simply drop the case -- the retained
successor for switches is always the default successor. However, it
is likely possible through some contrivance of different loop passes,
unrolling, and simplifying for this to occur in practice and
certainly there is nothing "invalid" about the IR so this pass needs
to handle it.
5) In the case of #4, we also will replace these multiple edges with
a direct branch much like in #1 and need to collapse the entries in
any PHI nodes to a single enrty.
All of this stems from the delightful fact that the same successor can
show up in multiple parts of the switch terminator, and each of these
are considered a distinct edge for the purpose of PHI nodes (and
iterating the successors and predecessors) but not for unswitching
itself, the dominator tree, or many other things. For the record,
I intensely dislike this "feature" of the IR in large part because of
the complexity it causes in passes like this. We already have a ton of
logic building sets and handling duplicates, and we just had to add
a bunch more.
I've added a complex test case that covers all five of the above failure
modes. I've also added a variation on it where #4 and #5 occur in loop
exit, adding fun where we have an LCSSA PHI node with "multiple entries"
despite have dedicated exits. There were no additional issues found by
this, but it seems a useful corner case to cover with testing.
One thing that working on all of this code has made painfully clear for
me as well is how amazingly inefficient our PHI node representation is
(in terms of the in-memory data structures and the APIs used to update
them). This code has truly marvelous complexity bounds because every
time we remove an entry from a PHI node we do a linear scan to find it
and then a linear update to the data structure to remove it. We could in
theory batch all of the PHI node updates into a single linear walk of
the operands making this much more efficient, but the APIs fight hard
against this and the fact that we have to handle duplicates in the
peculiar manner we do (removing all but one in some cases) makes even
implementing that very tedious and annoying. Anyways, none of this is
new here or specific to loop unswitching. All code in LLVM that updates
PHI node operands suffers from these problems.
llvm-svn: 336536
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
after trivial unswitching.
This PR illustrates that a fundamental analysis update was not performed
with the new loop unswitch. This update is also somewhat fundamental to
the core idea of the new loop unswitch -- we actually *update* the CFG
based on the unswitching. In order to do that, we need to update the
loop nest in addition to the domtree.
For some reason, when writing trivial unswitching, I thought that the
loop nest structure cannot be changed by the transformation. But the PR
helps illustrate that it clearly can. I've expanded this to a number of
different test cases that try to cover the different cases of this. When
we unswitch, we move an exit edge of a loop out of the loop. If this
exit edge changes which loop reached by an exit is the innermost loop,
it changes the parent of the loop. Essentially, this transformation may
hoist the inner loop up the nest. I've added the simple logic to handle
this reliably in the trivial unswitching case. This just requires
updating LoopInfo and rebuilding LCSSA on the impacted loops. In the
trivial case, we don't even need to handle dedicated exits because we're
only hoisting the one loop and we just split its preheader.
I've also ported all of these tests to non-trivial unswitching and
verified that the logic already there correctly handles the loop nest
updates necessary.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48851
llvm-svn: 336477
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
unswitching of switches.
This works much like trivial unswitching of switches in that it reliably
moves the switch out of the loop. Here we potentially clone the entire
loop into each successor of the switch and re-point the cases at these
clones.
Due to the complexity of actually doing nontrivial unswitching, this
patch doesn't create a dedicated routine for handling switches -- it
would duplicate far too much code. Instead, it generalizes the existing
routine to handle both branches and switches as it largely reduces to
looping in a few places instead of doing something once. This actually
improves the results in some cases with branches due to being much more
careful about how dead regions of code are managed. With branches,
because exactly one clone is created and there are exactly two edges
considered, somewhat sloppy handling of the dead regions of code was
sufficient in most cases. But with switches, there are much more
complicated patterns of dead code and so I've had to move to a more
robust model generally. We still do as much pruning of the dead code
early as possible because that allows us to avoid even cloning the code.
This also surfaced another problem with nontrivial unswitching before
which is that we weren't as precise in reconstructing loops as we could
have been. This seems to have been mostly harmless, but resulted in
pointless LCSSA PHI nodes and other unnecessary cruft. With switches, we
have to get this *right*, and everything benefits from it.
While the testing may seem a bit light here because we only have two
real cases with actual switches, they do a surprisingly good job of
exercising numerous edge cases. Also, because we share the logic with
branches, most of the changes in this patch are reasonably well covered
by existing tests.
The new unswitch now has all of the same fundamental power as the old
one with the exception of the single unsound case of *partial* switch
unswitching -- that really is just loop specialization and not
unswitching at all. It doesn't fit into the canonicalization model in
any way. We can add a loop specialization pass that runs late based on
profile data if important test cases ever come up here.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47683
llvm-svn: 335553
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
conditions feeding a chain of `and`s or `or`s for a branch.
Much like with full non-trivial unswitching, we rely on the pass manager
to handle iterating until all of the profitable unswitches have been
done. This is to allow other more profitable unswitches to fire on any
of the cloned, simpler versions of the loop if viable.
Threading the partial unswiching through the non-trivial unswitching
logic motivated some minor refactorings. If those are too disruptive to
make it reasonable to review this patch, I can separate them out, but
it'll be somewhat timeconsuming so I wanted to send it for initial
review as-is. Feel free to tell me whether it warrants pulling apart.
I've tried to re-use (and factor out) logic form the partial trivial
unswitching, but not as much could be shared as I had haped. Still, this
wasn't as bad as I naively expected.
Some basic testing is added, but I probably need more. Suggestions for
things you'd like to see tested more than welcome. One thing I'd like to
do is add some testing that when we schedule this with loop-instsimplify
it effectively cleans up the cruft created.
Last but not least, this uncovered a bug that has been in loop cloning
the entire time for non-trivial unswitching. Specifically, we didn't
correctly add the outer-most cloned loop to the list of cloned loops.
This meant that LCSSA wouldn't be updated for it hypothetically, and
more significantly that we would never visit it in the loop pass
manager. I noticed this while checking loop-instsimplify by hand. I'll
try to separate this bugfix out into its own patch with a more focused
test. But it is just one line, so shouldn't significantly confuse the
review here.
After this patch, the only missing "feature" in this unswitch I'm aware
of us non-trivial unswitching of switches. I'll try implementing *full*
non-trivial unswitching of switches (which is at least a sound thing to
implement), but *partial* non-trivial unswitching of switches is
something I don't see any sound and principled way to implement. I also
have no interesting test cases for the latter, so I'm not really
worried. The rest of the things that need to be ported are bug-fixes and
more narrow / targeted support for specific issues.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47522
llvm-svn: 335203
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Summary:
I noticed this issue because we didn't put the primary cloned loop into
the `NonChildClonedLoops` vector and so never iterated on it. Once
I fixed that, it made it clear why I had to do a really complicated and
unnecesasry dance when updating the loops to remain in canonical form --
I was unwittingly working around the fact that the primary cloned loop
wasn't in the expected list of cloned loops. Doh!
Now that we include it in this vector, we don't need to return it and we
can consolidate the update logic as we correctly have a single place
where it can be handled.
I've just added a test for the iteration order aspect as every time
I changed the update logic partially or incorrectly here, an existing
test failed and caught it so that seems well covered (which is also
evidenced by the extensive working around of this missing update).
Reviewers: asbirlea, sanjoy
Subscribers: mcrosier, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47647
llvm-svn: 333811
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
loop unswitch.
This code incorrectly added the header to the loop block set early. As
a consequence we would incorrectly conclude that a nested loop body had
already been visited when the header of the outer loop was the preheader
of the nested loop. In retrospect, adding the header eagerly doesn't
really make sense. It seems nicer to let the cycle be formed naturally.
This will catch crazy bugs in the CFG reconstruction where we can't
correctly form the cycle earlier rather than later, and makes the rest
of the logic just fall out.
I've also added various asserts that make these issues *much* easier to
debug.
llvm-svn: 330707
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This code path can very clearly be called in a context where we have
baselined all the cloned blocks to a particular loop and are trying to
handle nested subloops. There is no harm in this, so just relax the
assert. I've added a test case that will make sure we actually exercise
this code path.
llvm-svn: 330680
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The condition this was asserting doesn't actually hold. I've added
comments to explain why, removed the assert, and added a fun test case
reduced out of 403.gcc.
llvm-svn: 330564
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
unswitching non-trivial edges.
Summary:
This fixes the bug pointed out in review with non-trivial unswitching.
This also provides a basis that should make it pretty easy to finish
fleshing out a routine to scan an entire function body for irreducible
control flow, but this patch remains minimal for disabling loop
unswitch.
Reviewers: sanjoy, fedor.sergeev
Subscribers: mcrosier, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45754
llvm-svn: 330357
|
|
|
making it no longer even remotely simple.
The pass will now be more of a "full loop unswitching" pass rather than
anything substantively simpler than any other approach. I plan to rename
it accordingly once the dust settles.
The key ideas of the new loop unswitcher are carried over for
non-trivial unswitching:
1) Fully unswitch a branch or switch instruction from inside of a loop to
outside of it.
2) Update the CFG and IR. This avoids needing to "remember" the
unswitched branches as well as avoiding excessively cloning and
reliance on complex parts of simplify-cfg to cleanup the cfg.
3) Update the analyses (where we can) rather than just blowing them away
or relying on something else updating them.
Sadly, #3 is somewhat compromised here as the dominator tree updates
were too complex for me to want to reason about. I will need to make
another attempt to do this now that we have a nice dynamic update API
for dominators. However, we do adhere to #3 w.r.t. LoopInfo.
This approach also adds an important principls specific to non-trivial
unswitching: not *all* of the loop will be duplicated when unswitching.
This fact allows us to compute the cost in terms of how much *duplicate*
code is inserted rather than just on raw size. Unswitching conditions
which essentialy partition loops will work regardless of the total loop
size.
Some remaining issues that I will be addressing in subsequent commits:
- Handling unstructured control flow.
- Unswitching 'switch' cases instead of just branches.
- Moving to the dynamic update API for dominators.
Some high-level, interesting limitationsV that folks might want to push
on as follow-ups but that I don't have any immediate plans around:
- We could be much more clever about not cloning things that will be
deleted. In fact, we should be able to delete *nothing* and do
a minimal number of clones.
- There are many more interesting selection criteria for which branch to
unswitch that we might want to look at. One that I'm interested in
particularly are a set of conditions which all exit the loop and which
can be merged into a single unswitched test of them.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34200
llvm-svn: 318549
|
