As noted in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46666, the current behavior of assuming if-conversion safety if a loop is annotated parallel (`!llvm.loop.parallel_accesses`), is not expectable, the documentation for this behavior was since removed from the LangRef again, and can lead to invalid reads.
This was observed in POCL (https://github.com/pocl/pocl/issues/757) and would require similar workarounds in current work at hipSYCL.
The question remains why this was initially added and what the implications of removing this optimization would be.
Do we need an alternative mechanism to propagate the information about legality of if-conversion?
Or is the idea that conditional loads in `#pragma clang loop vectorize(assume_safety)` can be executed unmasked without additional checks flawed in general?
I think this implication is not part of what a user of that pragma (and corresponding metadata) would expect and thus dangerous.
Only two additional tests failed, which are adapted in this patch. Depending on the further direction force-ifcvt.ll should be removed or further adapted.
Reviewed By: jdoerfert
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103907
This patch uses the calculated maximum scalable VFs to build VPlans,
cost them and select a suitable scalable VF.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98722
Update isFirstOrderRecurrence to explore all uses of a recurrence phi
and check if we can sink them. If there are multiple users to sink, they
are all mapped to the previous instruction.
Fixes PR44286 (and another PR or two).
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D84951
When loop hints are passed via metadata, the allowReordering function
in LoopVectorizationLegality will allow the order of floating point
operations to be changed:
bool allowReordering() const {
// When enabling loop hints are provided we allow the vectorizer to change
// the order of operations that is given by the scalar loop. This is not
// enabled by default because can be unsafe or inefficient.
The -enable-strict-reductions flag introduced in D98435 will currently only
vectorize reductions in-loop if hints are used, since canVectorizeFPMath()
will return false if reordering is not allowed.
This patch changes canVectorizeFPMath() to query whether it is safe to
vectorize the loop with ordered reductions if no hints are used. For
testing purposes, an additional flag (-hints-allow-reordering) has been
added to disable the reordering behaviour described above.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101836
This patch adds a new option to the LoopVectorizer to control how
scalable vectors can be used.
Initially, this suggests three levels to control scalable
vectorization, although other more aggressive options can be added in
the future.
The possible options are:
- Disabled: Disables vectorization with scalable vectors.
- Enabled: Vectorize loops using scalable vectors or fixed-width
vectors, but favors fixed-width vectors when the cost
is a tie.
- Preferred: Like 'Enabled', but favoring scalable vectors when the
cost-model is inconclusive.
Reviewed By: paulwalker-arm, vkmr
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101945
This patch causes the loop vectorizer to not interleave loops that have
nounroll loop hints (llvm.loop.unroll.disable and llvm.loop.unroll_count(1)).
Note that if a particular interleave count is being requested
(through llvm.loop.interleave_count), it will still be honoured, regardless
of the presence of nounroll hints.
Reviewed By: Meinersbur
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101374
Re-apply 25fbe803d4db, with a small update to emit the right remark
class.
Original message:
[LV] Move runtime pointer size check to LVP::plan().
This removes the need for the remaining doesNotMeet check and instead
directly checks if there are too many runtime checks for vectorization
in the planner.
A subsequent patch will adjust the logic used to decide whether to
vectorize with runtime to consider their cost more accurately.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
This removes the need for the remaining doesNotMeet check and instead
directly checks if there are too many runtime checks for vectorization
in the planner.
A subsequent patch will adjust the logic used to decide whether to
vectorize with runtime to consider their cost more accurately.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98634
We know if the loop contains FP instructions preventing vectorization
after we are done with legality checks. This patch updates the code the
check for un-vectorizable FP operations earlier, to avoid unnecessarily
running the cost model and picking a vectorization factor. It also makes
the code more direct and moves the check to a position where similar
checks are done.
I might be missing something, but I don't see any reason to handle this
check differently to other, similar checks.
Reviewed By: lebedev.ri
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D98633
We are tracking an FP instruction that does *not* have FMF (reassoc)
properties, so calling that "Unsafe" seems opposite of the common
reading.
I also removed one getter method by rolling the null check into
the access. Further simplification seems possible.
The motivation is to clean up the interactions between FMF and
function-level attributes in these classes and their callers.
I am trying to untangle the fast-math-flags propagation logic
in the vectorizers (see a6f022127 for SLP).
The loop vectorizer has a mix of checking FP function attributes,
IR-level FMF, and just wrong assumptions.
I am trying to avoid regressions while fixing this, and I think
the IR-level logic is good enough for that, but it's hard to say
for sure. This would be the 1st step in the clean-up.
The existing test that I changed to include 'fast' actually shows
a miscompile: the function only had the equivalent of nnan, but we
created new instructions that had fast (all FMF set). This is
similar to the example in https://llvm.org/PR35538
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D95452
In the following loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 4] = a[i] + b[i];
}
The loop dependence constrains the VF to a maximum of (4, fixed), which
would mean using <4 x i32> as the vector type in vectorization.
Extending this to scalable vectorization, a VF of (4, scalable) implies
a vector type of <vscale x 4 x i32>. To determine if this is legal
vscale must be taken into account. For this example, unless
max(vscale)=1, it's unsafe to vectorize.
For SVE, the number of bits in an SVE register is architecturally
defined to be a multiple of 128 bits with a maximum of 2048 bits, thus
the maximum vscale is 16. In the loop above it is therefore unfeasible
to vectorize with SVE. However, in this loop:
void foo(int *a, int *b, int N) {
#pragma clang loop vectorize_width(X, scalable)
for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
a[i + 32] = a[i] + b[i];
}
As long as max(vscale) multiplied by the number of lanes 'X' doesn't
exceed the dependence distance, it is safe to vectorize. For SVE a VF of
(2, scalable) is within this constraint, since a vector of <16 x 2 x 32>
will have no dependencies between lanes. For any number of lanes larger
than this it would be unsafe to vectorize.
This patch extends 'computeFeasibleMaxVF' to legalize scalable VFs
specified as loop hints, implementing the following behaviour:
* If the backend does not support scalable vectors, ignore the hint.
* If scalable vectorization is unfeasible given the loop
dependence, like in the first example above for SVE, then use a
fixed VF.
* Accept scalable VFs if it's safe to do so.
* Otherwise, clamp scalable VFs that exceed the maximum safe VF.
Reviewed By: sdesmalen, fhahn, david-arm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D91718
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
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 implements 2 different vectorisation fallback strategies if tail-folding
fails: 1) don't vectorise at all, or 2) vectorise using a scalar epilogue. This
can be controlled with option -prefer-predicate-over-epilogue, that has been
changed to take a numeric value corresponding to the tail-folding preference
and preferred fallback.
Patch by: Pierre van Houtryve, Sjoerd Meijer.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D79783
getReductionVars, getInductionVars and getFirstOrderRecurrences were all
being returned from LoopVectorizationLegality as pointers to lists. This
just changes them to be references, cleaning up the interface slightly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D75448
from DenseMap to MapVector
The iteration order of LoopVectorizationLegality::Reductions matters for the
final code generation, so we better use MapVector instead of DenseMap for it
to remove the nondeterminacy. reduction-order.ll in the patch is an example
reduced from the case we saw. In the output of opt command, the order of the
select instructions in the vector.body block keeps changing from run to run
currently.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73490
The assume intrinsic is intentionally marked as may reading/writing
memory, to avoid passes moving them around. When flattening the CFG
for predicated blocks, we have to drop the assume calls, as they
are control-flow dependent.
There are some cases where we can do better (when control flow is
preserved), but that is follow-up work.
Fixes PR43620.
Reviewers: hsaito, rengolin, dcaballe, Ayal
Reviewed By: Ayal
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68814
Summary:
Fold-tail currently supports reduction last-vector-value live-out's,
but has yet to support last-scalar-value live-outs, including
non-header phi's. As it relies on AllowedExit in order to detect
them and bail out we need to add the non-header PHI nodes to
AllowedExit, otherwise we end up with miscompiles.
Solves https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43166
Reviewers: fhahn, Ayal
Reviewed By: fhahn, Ayal
Subscribers: anna, hiraditya, rkruppe, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67074
llvm-svn: 370721
assume_safety implies that loads under "if's" can be safely executed
speculatively (unguarded, unmasked). However this assumption holds only for the
original user "if's", not those introduced by the compiler, such as the
fold-tail "if" that guards us from loading beyond the original loop trip-count.
Currently the combination of fold-tail and assume-safety pragmas results in
ignoring the fold-tail predicate that guards the loads, generating unmasked
loads. This patch fixes this behavior.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66106
Reviewers: Ayal, hsaito, fhahn
llvm-svn: 368973
This allows folding of the scalar epilogue loop (the tail) into the main
vectorised loop body when the loop is annotated with a "vector predicate"
metadata hint. To fold the tail, instructions need to be predicated (masked),
enabling/disabling lanes for the remainder iterations.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65197
llvm-svn: 367592
When considering a loop containing nontemporal stores or loads for
vectorization, suppress the vectorization if the corresponding
vectorized store or load with the aligment of the original scaler
memory op is not supported with the nontemporal hint on the target.
This adds two new functions:
bool isLegalNTStore(Type *DataType, unsigned Alignment) const;
bool isLegalNTLoad(Type *DataType, unsigned Alignment) const;
to TTI, leaving the target independent default implementation as
returning true, but with overriding implementations for X86 that
check the legality based on available Subtarget features.
This fixes https://llvm.org/PR40759
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61764
llvm-svn: 363581
A function for loop vectorization illegality reporting has been
introduced:
void LoopVectorizationLegality::reportVectorizationFailure(
const StringRef DebugMsg, const StringRef OREMsg,
const StringRef ORETag, Instruction * const I) const;
The function prints a debug message when the debug for the compilation
unit is enabled as well as invokes the optimization report emitter to
generate a message with a specified tag. The function doesn't cover any
complicated logic when a custom lambda should be passed to the emitter,
only generating a message with a tag is supported.
The function always prints the instruction `I` after the debug message
whenever the instruction is specified, otherwise the debug message
ends with a dot: 'LV: Not vectorizing: Disabled/already vectorized.'
Patch by Pavel Samolysov <samolisov@gmail.com>
llvm-svn: 362736
Loop::setAlreadyUnrolled() and
LoopVectorizeHints::setLoopAlreadyUnrolled() both add loop metadata that
stops the same loop from being transformed multiple times. This patch
merges both implementations.
In doing so we fix 3 potential issues:
* setLoopAlreadyUnrolled() kept the llvm.loop.vectorize/interleave.*
metadata even though it will not be used anymore. This already caused
problems such as http://llvm.org/PR40546. Change the behavior to the
one of setAlreadyUnrolled which deletes this loop metadata.
* setAlreadyUnrolled() used to create a new LoopID by calling
MDNode::get with nullptr as the first operand, then replacing it by
the returned references using replaceOperandWith. It is possible
that MDNode::get would instead return an existing node (due to
de-duplication) that then gets modified. To avoid, use a fresh
TempMDNode that does not get uniqued with anything else before
replacing it with replaceOperandWith.
* LoopVectorizeHints::matchesHintMetadataName() only compares the
suffix of the attribute to set the new value for. That is, when
called with "enable", would erase attributes such as
"llvm.loop.unroll.enable", "llvm.loop.vectorize.enable" and
"llvm.loop.distribute.enable" instead of the one to replace.
Fortunately, function was only called with "isvectorized".
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57566
llvm-svn: 353738
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Rename:
NoUnrolling to InterleaveOnlyWhenForced
and
AlwaysVectorize to !VectorizeOnlyWhenForced
Contrary to what the name 'AlwaysVectorize' suggests, it does not
unconditionally vectorize all loops, but applies a cost model to
determine whether vectorization is profitable to all loops. Hence,
passing false will disable the cost model, except when a loop is marked
with llvm.loop.vectorize.enable. The 'OnlyWhenForced' suffix (suggested
by @hfinkel in D55716) better matches this behavior.
Similarly, 'NoUnrolling' disables the profitability cost model for
interleaving (a term to distinguish it from unrolling by the
LoopUnrollPass); rename it for consistency.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55785
llvm-svn: 349513
When multiple loop transformation are defined in a loop's metadata, their order of execution is defined by the order of their respective passes in the pass pipeline. For instance, e.g.
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
is the same as
#pragma clang loop distribute(enable)
#pragma clang loop unroll_and_jam(enable)
and will try to loop-distribute before Unroll-And-Jam because the LoopDistribute pass is scheduled after UnrollAndJam pass. UnrollAndJamPass only supports one inner loop, i.e. it will necessarily fail after loop distribution. It is not possible to specify another execution order. Also,t the order of passes in the pipeline is subject to change between versions of LLVM, optimization options and which pass manager is used.
This patch adds 'followup' attributes to various loop transformation passes. These attributes define which attributes the resulting loop of a transformation should have. For instance,
!0 = !{!0, !1, !2}
!1 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.enable"}
!2 = !{!"llvm.loop.unroll_and_jam.followup_inner", !3}
!3 = !{!"llvm.loop.distribute.enable"}
defines a loop ID (!0) to be unrolled-and-jammed (!1) and then the attribute !3 to be added to the jammed inner loop, which contains the instruction to distribute the inner loop.
Currently, in both pass managers, pass execution is in a fixed order and UnrollAndJamPass will not execute again after LoopDistribute. We hope to fix this in the future by allowing pass managers to run passes until a fixpoint is reached, use Polly to perform these transformations, or add a loop transformation pass which takes the order issue into account.
For mandatory/forced transformations (e.g. by having been declared by #pragma omp simd), the user must be notified when a transformation could not be performed. It is not possible that the responsible pass emits such a warning because the transformation might be 'hidden' in a followup attribute when it is executed, or it is not present in the pipeline at all. For this reason, this patche introduces a WarnMissedTransformations pass, to warn about orphaned transformations.
Since this changes the user-visible diagnostic message when a transformation is applied, two test cases in the clang repository need to be updated.
To ensure that no other transformation is executed before the intended one, the attribute `llvm.loop.disable_nonforced` can be added which should disable transformation heuristics before the intended transformation is applied. E.g. it would be surprising if a loop is distributed before a #pragma unroll_and_jam is applied.
With more supported code transformations (loop fusion, interchange, stripmining, offloading, etc.), transformations can be used as building blocks for more complex transformations (e.g. stripmining+stripmining+interchange -> tiling).
Reviewed By: hfinkel, dmgreen
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49281
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55288
llvm-svn: 348944
When optimizing for size, a loop is vectorized only if the resulting vector loop
completely replaces the original scalar loop. This holds if no runtime guards
are needed, if the original trip-count TC does not overflow, and if TC is a
known constant that is a multiple of the VF. The last two TC-related conditions
can be overcome by
1. rounding the trip-count of the vector loop up from TC to a multiple of VF;
2. masking the vector body under a newly introduced "if (i <= TC-1)" condition.
The patch allows loops with arbitrary trip counts to be vectorized under -Os,
subject to the existing cost model considerations. It also applies to loops with
small trip counts (under -O2) which are currently handled as if under -Os.
The patch does not handle loops with reductions, live-outs, or w/o a primary
induction variable, and disallows interleave groups.
(Third, final and main part of -)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50480
llvm-svn: 344743
Summary:
[VPlan] Implement vector code generation support for simple outer loops.
Context: Patch Series #1 for outer loop vectorization support in LV using VPlan. (RFC: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-December/119523.html).
This patch introduces vector code generation support for simple outer loops that are currently supported in the VPlanNativePath. Changes here essentially do the following:
- force vector code generation using explicit vectorize_width
- add conservative early returns in cost model and other places for VPlanNativePath
- add code for setting up outer loop inductions
- support for widening non-induction PHIs that can result from inner loops and uniform conditional branches
- support for generating uniform inner branches
We plan to add a handful C outer loop executable tests once the initial code generation support is committed. This patch is expected to be NFC for the inner loop vectorizer path. Since we are moving in the direction of supporting outer loop vectorization in LV, it may also be time to rename classes such as InnerLoopVectorizer.
Reviewers: fhahn, rengolin, hsaito, dcaballe, mkuper, hfinkel, Ayal
Reviewed By: fhahn, hsaito
Subscribers: dmgreen, bollu, tschuett, rkruppe, rogfer01, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50820
llvm-svn: 342197
We've been running doxygen with the autobrief option for a couple of
years now. This makes the \brief markers into our comments
redundant. Since they are a visual distraction and we don't want to
encourage more \brief markers in new code either, this patch removes
them all.
Patch produced by
for i in $(git grep -l '\\brief'); do perl -pi -e 's/\\brief //g' $i & done
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46290
llvm-svn: 331272
Summary:
This is a follow up to D45420 (included here since it is still under review and this change is dependent on that) and D45072 (committed).
Actual change for this patch is LoopVectorize* and cmakefile. All others are all from D45420.
LoopVectorizationLegality is an analysis and thus really belongs to Analysis tree. It is modular enough and it is reusable enough ---- we can further improve those aspects once uses outside of LV picks up.
Hopefully, this will make it easier for people familiar with vectorization theory, but not necessarily LV itself to contribute, by lowering the volume of code they should deal with. We probably should start adding some code in LV to check its own capability (i.e., vectorization is legal but LV is not ready to handle it) and then bail out.
Reviewers: rengolin, fhahn, hfinkel, mkuper, aemerson, mssimpso, dcaballe, sguggill
Reviewed By: rengolin, dcaballe
Subscribers: egarcia, rogfer01, mgorny, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45552
llvm-svn: 331139
