Summary:
This replaces calls to getEntryCount().hasValue() with hasProfileData
that does the same thing. This refactoring is useful to do before adding
synthetic function entry counts but also a useful cleanup IMO even
otherwise. I have used hasProfileData instead of hasRealProfileData as
David had earlier suggested since I think profile implies "real" and I
use the phrase "synthetic entry count" and not "synthetic profile count"
but I am fine calling it hasRealProfileData if you prefer.
Reviewers: davidxl, silvas
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41461
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@321331 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This patch is a generalization of the improvement introduced in rL296898.
Previously, we were able to peel one iteration of a loop to get rid of a Phi that becomes
an invariant on the 2nd iteration. In more general case, if a Phi becomes invariant after
N iterations, we can peel N times and turn it into invariant.
In order to do this, we for every Phi in loop's header we define the Invariant Depth value
which is calculated as follows:
Given %x = phi <Inputs from above the loop>, ..., [%y, %back.edge].
If %y is a loop invariant, then Depth(%x) = 1.
If %y is a Phi from the loop header, Depth(%x) = Depth(%y) + 1.
Otherwise, Depth(%x) is infinite.
Notice that if we peel a loop, all Phis with Depth = 1 become invariants,
and all other Phis with finite depth decrease the depth by 1.
Thus, peeling N first iterations allows us to turn all Phis with Depth <= N
into invariants.
Reviewers: reames, apilipenko, mkuper, skatkov, anna, sanjoy
Reviewed By: sanjoy
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31613
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@300446 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
When peeling loops basing on phis becoming invariants, we make a wrong loop size check.
UP.Threshold should be compared against the total numbers of instructions after the transformation,
which is equal to 2 * LoopSize in case of peeling one iteration.
We should also check that the maximum allowed number of peeled iterations is not zero.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31753
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@300441 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
We should check if loop size allows us to peel at least one iteration
before we do so.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkuper, efriedma
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30632
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@297122 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
If a loop contains a Phi node which has an invariant input from back
edge, it is profitable to peel such loops (rather than unroll them) to
use the advantage that this Phi is always invariant starting from 2nd
iteration. After the 1st iteration is peeled, other optimizations can
potentially simplify calculations with this invariant.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, mkuper, reames
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30161
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296898 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.
This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@296897 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Mostly straightforward changes; we just didn't do the computation before.
One sort of interesting change in LoopUnroll.cpp: we weren't handling
dominance for children of the loop latch correctly, but
foldBlockIntoPredecessor hid the problem for complete unrolling.
Currently punting on loop peeling; made some minor changes to isolate
that problem to LoopUnrollPeel.cpp.
Adds a flag -unroll-verify-domtree; it verifies the domtree immediately
after we finish updating it. This is on by default for +Asserts builds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28073
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@292447 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
Regardless how the loop body weight is distributed, we should preserve
total loop body weight. i.e. we should have same weight reaching the body of the loop
or its duplicates in peeled and unpeeled case.
Reviewers: mkuper, davidxl, anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28179
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@290833 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@288274 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
