1
0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-21 12:02:58 +02:00
llvm-mirror/lib/CodeGen/ExecutionDepsFix.cpp

756 lines
26 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===- ExecutionDepsFix.cpp - Fix execution dependecy issues ----*- C++ -*-===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "llvm/CodeGen/ExecutionDepsFix.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/PostOrderIterator.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/iterator_range.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/LivePhysRegs.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunctionPass.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/RegisterClassInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Allocator.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetInstrInfo.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetSubtargetInfo.h"
using namespace llvm;
#define DEBUG_TYPE "execution-deps-fix"
/// Translate TRI register number to a list of indices into our smaller tables
/// of interesting registers.
iterator_range<SmallVectorImpl<int>::const_iterator>
ExecutionDepsFix::regIndices(unsigned Reg) const {
assert(Reg < AliasMap.size() && "Invalid register");
const auto &Entry = AliasMap[Reg];
return make_range(Entry.begin(), Entry.end());
}
DomainValue *ExecutionDepsFix::alloc(int domain) {
DomainValue *dv = Avail.empty() ?
new(Allocator.Allocate()) DomainValue :
Avail.pop_back_val();
if (domain >= 0)
dv->addDomain(domain);
assert(dv->Refs == 0 && "Reference count wasn't cleared");
assert(!dv->Next && "Chained DomainValue shouldn't have been recycled");
return dv;
}
/// Release a reference to DV. When the last reference is released,
/// collapse if needed.
void ExecutionDepsFix::release(DomainValue *DV) {
while (DV) {
assert(DV->Refs && "Bad DomainValue");
if (--DV->Refs)
return;
// There are no more DV references. Collapse any contained instructions.
if (DV->AvailableDomains && !DV->isCollapsed())
collapse(DV, DV->getFirstDomain());
DomainValue *Next = DV->Next;
DV->clear();
Avail.push_back(DV);
// Also release the next DomainValue in the chain.
DV = Next;
}
}
/// Follow the chain of dead DomainValues until a live DomainValue is reached.
/// Update the referenced pointer when necessary.
DomainValue *ExecutionDepsFix::resolve(DomainValue *&DVRef) {
DomainValue *DV = DVRef;
if (!DV || !DV->Next)
return DV;
// DV has a chain. Find the end.
do DV = DV->Next;
while (DV->Next);
// Update DVRef to point to DV.
retain(DV);
release(DVRef);
DVRef = DV;
return DV;
}
/// Set LiveRegs[rx] = dv, updating reference counts.
void ExecutionDepsFix::setLiveReg(int rx, DomainValue *dv) {
assert(unsigned(rx) < NumRegs && "Invalid index");
assert(LiveRegs && "Must enter basic block first.");
if (LiveRegs[rx].Value == dv)
return;
if (LiveRegs[rx].Value)
release(LiveRegs[rx].Value);
LiveRegs[rx].Value = retain(dv);
}
// Kill register rx, recycle or collapse any DomainValue.
void ExecutionDepsFix::kill(int rx) {
assert(unsigned(rx) < NumRegs && "Invalid index");
assert(LiveRegs && "Must enter basic block first.");
if (!LiveRegs[rx].Value)
return;
release(LiveRegs[rx].Value);
LiveRegs[rx].Value = nullptr;
}
/// Force register rx into domain.
void ExecutionDepsFix::force(int rx, unsigned domain) {
assert(unsigned(rx) < NumRegs && "Invalid index");
assert(LiveRegs && "Must enter basic block first.");
if (DomainValue *dv = LiveRegs[rx].Value) {
if (dv->isCollapsed())
dv->addDomain(domain);
else if (dv->hasDomain(domain))
collapse(dv, domain);
else {
// This is an incompatible open DomainValue. Collapse it to whatever and
// force the new value into domain. This costs a domain crossing.
collapse(dv, dv->getFirstDomain());
assert(LiveRegs[rx].Value && "Not live after collapse?");
LiveRegs[rx].Value->addDomain(domain);
}
} else {
// Set up basic collapsed DomainValue.
setLiveReg(rx, alloc(domain));
}
}
/// Collapse open DomainValue into given domain. If there are multiple
/// registers using dv, they each get a unique collapsed DomainValue.
void ExecutionDepsFix::collapse(DomainValue *dv, unsigned domain) {
assert(dv->hasDomain(domain) && "Cannot collapse");
// Collapse all the instructions.
while (!dv->Instrs.empty())
TII->setExecutionDomain(*dv->Instrs.pop_back_val(), domain);
dv->setSingleDomain(domain);
// If there are multiple users, give them new, unique DomainValues.
if (LiveRegs && dv->Refs > 1)
for (unsigned rx = 0; rx != NumRegs; ++rx)
if (LiveRegs[rx].Value == dv)
setLiveReg(rx, alloc(domain));
}
/// All instructions and registers in B are moved to A, and B is released.
bool ExecutionDepsFix::merge(DomainValue *A, DomainValue *B) {
assert(!A->isCollapsed() && "Cannot merge into collapsed");
assert(!B->isCollapsed() && "Cannot merge from collapsed");
2010-03-31 22:05:12 +02:00
if (A == B)
return true;
// Restrict to the domains that A and B have in common.
unsigned common = A->getCommonDomains(B->AvailableDomains);
if (!common)
return false;
A->AvailableDomains = common;
A->Instrs.append(B->Instrs.begin(), B->Instrs.end());
// Clear the old DomainValue so we won't try to swizzle instructions twice.
B->clear();
// All uses of B are referred to A.
B->Next = retain(A);
for (unsigned rx = 0; rx != NumRegs; ++rx) {
assert(LiveRegs && "no space allocated for live registers");
if (LiveRegs[rx].Value == B)
setLiveReg(rx, A);
}
return true;
}
/// Set up LiveRegs by merging predecessor live-out values.
void ExecutionDepsFix::enterBasicBlock(MachineBasicBlock *MBB) {
// Reset instruction counter in each basic block.
CurInstr = 0;
// Set up UndefReads to track undefined register reads.
UndefReads.clear();
LiveRegSet.clear();
// Set up LiveRegs to represent registers entering MBB.
if (!LiveRegs)
LiveRegs = new LiveReg[NumRegs];
// Default values are 'nothing happened a long time ago'.
for (unsigned rx = 0; rx != NumRegs; ++rx) {
LiveRegs[rx].Value = nullptr;
LiveRegs[rx].Def = -(1 << 20);
}
// This is the entry block.
if (MBB->pred_empty()) {
for (const auto &LI : MBB->liveins()) {
for (int rx : regIndices(LI.PhysReg)) {
// Treat function live-ins as if they were defined just before the first
// instruction. Usually, function arguments are set up immediately
// before the call.
LiveRegs[rx].Def = -1;
}
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "BB#" << MBB->getNumber() << ": entry\n");
return;
}
// Try to coalesce live-out registers from predecessors.
for (MachineBasicBlock::const_pred_iterator pi = MBB->pred_begin(),
pe = MBB->pred_end(); pi != pe; ++pi) {
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
auto fi = MBBInfos.find(*pi);
assert(fi != MBBInfos.end() &&
"Should have pre-allocated MBBInfos for all MBBs");
LiveReg *Incoming = fi->second.OutRegs;
// Incoming is null if this is a backedge from a BB
// we haven't processed yet
if (Incoming == nullptr) {
continue;
}
for (unsigned rx = 0; rx != NumRegs; ++rx) {
// Use the most recent predecessor def for each register.
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
LiveRegs[rx].Def = std::max(LiveRegs[rx].Def, Incoming[rx].Def);
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
DomainValue *pdv = resolve(Incoming[rx].Value);
if (!pdv)
continue;
if (!LiveRegs[rx].Value) {
setLiveReg(rx, pdv);
continue;
}
// We have a live DomainValue from more than one predecessor.
if (LiveRegs[rx].Value->isCollapsed()) {
// We are already collapsed, but predecessor is not. Force it.
unsigned Domain = LiveRegs[rx].Value->getFirstDomain();
if (!pdv->isCollapsed() && pdv->hasDomain(Domain))
collapse(pdv, Domain);
continue;
}
// Currently open, merge in predecessor.
if (!pdv->isCollapsed())
merge(LiveRegs[rx].Value, pdv);
else
force(rx, pdv->getFirstDomain());
}
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
DEBUG(
dbgs() << "BB#" << MBB->getNumber()
<< (!isBlockDone(MBB) ? ": incomplete\n" : ": all preds known\n"));
}
void ExecutionDepsFix::leaveBasicBlock(MachineBasicBlock *MBB) {
assert(LiveRegs && "Must enter basic block first.");
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
LiveReg *OldOutRegs = MBBInfos[MBB].OutRegs;
// Save register clearances at end of MBB - used by enterBasicBlock().
MBBInfos[MBB].OutRegs = LiveRegs;
// While processing the basic block, we kept `Def` relative to the start
// of the basic block for convenience. However, future use of this information
// only cares about the clearance from the end of the block, so adjust
// everything to be relative to the end of the basic block.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = NumRegs; i != e; ++i)
LiveRegs[i].Def -= CurInstr;
if (OldOutRegs) {
// This must be the second pass.
// Release all the DomainValues instead of keeping them.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = NumRegs; i != e; ++i)
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
release(OldOutRegs[i].Value);
delete[] OldOutRegs;
}
LiveRegs = nullptr;
}
bool ExecutionDepsFix::visitInstr(MachineInstr *MI) {
// Update instructions with explicit execution domains.
std::pair<uint16_t, uint16_t> DomP = TII->getExecutionDomain(*MI);
if (DomP.first) {
if (DomP.second)
visitSoftInstr(MI, DomP.second);
else
visitHardInstr(MI, DomP.first);
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
return !DomP.first;
}
/// \brief Helps avoid false dependencies on undef registers by updating the
/// machine instructions' undef operand to use a register that the instruction
/// is truly dependent on, or use a register with clearance higher than Pref.
/// Returns true if it was able to find a true dependency, thus not requiring
/// a dependency breaking instruction regardless of clearance.
bool ExecutionDepsFix::pickBestRegisterForUndef(MachineInstr *MI,
unsigned OpIdx, unsigned Pref) {
MachineOperand &MO = MI->getOperand(OpIdx);
assert(MO.isUndef() && "Expected undef machine operand");
unsigned OriginalReg = MO.getReg();
// Update only undef operands that are mapped to one register.
if (AliasMap[OriginalReg].size() != 1)
return false;
// Get the undef operand's register class
const TargetRegisterClass *OpRC =
TII->getRegClass(MI->getDesc(), OpIdx, TRI, *MF);
// If the instruction has a true dependency, we can hide the false depdency
// behind it.
for (MachineOperand &CurrMO : MI->operands()) {
if (!CurrMO.isReg() || CurrMO.isDef() || CurrMO.isUndef() ||
!OpRC->contains(CurrMO.getReg()))
continue;
// We found a true dependency - replace the undef register with the true
// dependency.
MO.setReg(CurrMO.getReg());
return true;
}
// Go over all registers in the register class and find the register with
// max clearance or clearance higher than Pref.
unsigned MaxClearance = 0;
unsigned MaxClearanceReg = OriginalReg;
ArrayRef<MCPhysReg> Order = RegClassInfo.getOrder(OpRC);
for (auto Reg : Order) {
assert(AliasMap[Reg].size() == 1 &&
"Reg is expected to be mapped to a single index");
int RCrx = *regIndices(Reg).begin();
unsigned Clearance = CurInstr - LiveRegs[RCrx].Def;
if (Clearance <= MaxClearance)
continue;
MaxClearance = Clearance;
MaxClearanceReg = Reg;
if (MaxClearance > Pref)
break;
}
// Update the operand if we found a register with better clearance.
if (MaxClearanceReg != OriginalReg)
MO.setReg(MaxClearanceReg);
return false;
}
/// \brief Return true to if it makes sense to break dependence on a partial def
/// or undef use.
bool ExecutionDepsFix::shouldBreakDependence(MachineInstr *MI, unsigned OpIdx,
unsigned Pref) {
unsigned reg = MI->getOperand(OpIdx).getReg();
for (int rx : regIndices(reg)) {
unsigned Clearance = CurInstr - LiveRegs[rx].Def;
DEBUG(dbgs() << "Clearance: " << Clearance << ", want " << Pref);
if (Pref > Clearance) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << ": Break dependency.\n");
continue;
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
DEBUG(dbgs() << ": OK .\n");
return false;
}
return true;
}
// Update def-ages for registers defined by MI.
// If Kill is set, also kill off DomainValues clobbered by the defs.
//
// Also break dependencies on partial defs and undef uses.
void ExecutionDepsFix::processDefs(MachineInstr *MI, bool breakDependency,
bool Kill) {
assert(!MI->isDebugValue() && "Won't process debug values");
// Break dependence on undef uses. Do this before updating LiveRegs below.
unsigned OpNum;
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
if (breakDependency) {
unsigned Pref = TII->getUndefRegClearance(*MI, OpNum, TRI);
if (Pref) {
bool HadTrueDependency = pickBestRegisterForUndef(MI, OpNum, Pref);
// We don't need to bother trying to break a dependency if this
// instruction has a true dependency on that register through another
// operand - we'll have to wait for it to be available regardless.
if (!HadTrueDependency && shouldBreakDependence(MI, OpNum, Pref))
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
UndefReads.push_back(std::make_pair(MI, OpNum));
}
}
const MCInstrDesc &MCID = MI->getDesc();
for (unsigned i = 0,
e = MI->isVariadic() ? MI->getNumOperands() : MCID.getNumDefs();
i != e; ++i) {
MachineOperand &MO = MI->getOperand(i);
if (!MO.isReg())
continue;
if (MO.isUse())
continue;
for (int rx : regIndices(MO.getReg())) {
// This instruction explicitly defines rx.
DEBUG(dbgs() << TRI->getName(RC->getRegister(rx)) << ":\t" << CurInstr
<< '\t' << *MI);
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
if (breakDependency) {
// Check clearance before partial register updates.
// Call breakDependence before setting LiveRegs[rx].Def.
unsigned Pref = TII->getPartialRegUpdateClearance(*MI, i, TRI);
if (Pref && shouldBreakDependence(MI, i, Pref))
TII->breakPartialRegDependency(*MI, i, TRI);
}
// How many instructions since rx was last written?
LiveRegs[rx].Def = CurInstr;
// Kill off domains redefined by generic instructions.
if (Kill)
kill(rx);
}
}
++CurInstr;
}
/// \break Break false dependencies on undefined register reads.
///
/// Walk the block backward computing precise liveness. This is expensive, so we
/// only do it on demand. Note that the occurrence of undefined register reads
/// that should be broken is very rare, but when they occur we may have many in
/// a single block.
void ExecutionDepsFix::processUndefReads(MachineBasicBlock *MBB) {
if (UndefReads.empty())
return;
// Collect this block's live out register units.
LiveRegSet.init(*TRI);
// We do not need to care about pristine registers as they are just preserved
// but not actually used in the function.
LiveRegSet.addLiveOutsNoPristines(*MBB);
MachineInstr *UndefMI = UndefReads.back().first;
unsigned OpIdx = UndefReads.back().second;
for (MachineInstr &I : make_range(MBB->rbegin(), MBB->rend())) {
2013-12-13 23:23:54 +01:00
// Update liveness, including the current instruction's defs.
LiveRegSet.stepBackward(I);
if (UndefMI == &I) {
if (!LiveRegSet.contains(UndefMI->getOperand(OpIdx).getReg()))
TII->breakPartialRegDependency(*UndefMI, OpIdx, TRI);
UndefReads.pop_back();
if (UndefReads.empty())
return;
UndefMI = UndefReads.back().first;
OpIdx = UndefReads.back().second;
}
}
}
// A hard instruction only works in one domain. All input registers will be
// forced into that domain.
void ExecutionDepsFix::visitHardInstr(MachineInstr *mi, unsigned domain) {
// Collapse all uses.
for (unsigned i = mi->getDesc().getNumDefs(),
e = mi->getDesc().getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i) {
MachineOperand &mo = mi->getOperand(i);
if (!mo.isReg()) continue;
for (int rx : regIndices(mo.getReg())) {
force(rx, domain);
}
}
// Kill all defs and force them.
for (unsigned i = 0, e = mi->getDesc().getNumDefs(); i != e; ++i) {
MachineOperand &mo = mi->getOperand(i);
if (!mo.isReg()) continue;
for (int rx : regIndices(mo.getReg())) {
kill(rx);
force(rx, domain);
}
}
}
// A soft instruction can be changed to work in other domains given by mask.
void ExecutionDepsFix::visitSoftInstr(MachineInstr *mi, unsigned mask) {
// Bitmask of available domains for this instruction after taking collapsed
// operands into account.
unsigned available = mask;
// Scan the explicit use operands for incoming domains.
SmallVector<int, 4> used;
if (LiveRegs)
for (unsigned i = mi->getDesc().getNumDefs(),
e = mi->getDesc().getNumOperands(); i != e; ++i) {
MachineOperand &mo = mi->getOperand(i);
if (!mo.isReg()) continue;
for (int rx : regIndices(mo.getReg())) {
DomainValue *dv = LiveRegs[rx].Value;
if (dv == nullptr)
continue;
// Bitmask of domains that dv and available have in common.
unsigned common = dv->getCommonDomains(available);
// Is it possible to use this collapsed register for free?
if (dv->isCollapsed()) {
// Restrict available domains to the ones in common with the operand.
// If there are no common domains, we must pay the cross-domain
// penalty for this operand.
if (common) available = common;
} else if (common)
// Open DomainValue is compatible, save it for merging.
used.push_back(rx);
else
// Open DomainValue is not compatible with instruction. It is useless
// now.
kill(rx);
}
}
// If the collapsed operands force a single domain, propagate the collapse.
if (isPowerOf2_32(available)) {
unsigned domain = countTrailingZeros(available);
TII->setExecutionDomain(*mi, domain);
visitHardInstr(mi, domain);
return;
}
// Kill off any remaining uses that don't match available, and build a list of
// incoming DomainValues that we want to merge.
SmallVector<const LiveReg *, 4> Regs;
for (int rx : used) {
assert(LiveRegs && "no space allocated for live registers");
const LiveReg &LR = LiveRegs[rx];
// This useless DomainValue could have been missed above.
if (!LR.Value->getCommonDomains(available)) {
kill(rx);
continue;
}
// Sorted insertion.
auto I = std::upper_bound(Regs.begin(), Regs.end(), &LR,
[](const LiveReg *LHS, const LiveReg *RHS) {
return LHS->Def < RHS->Def;
});
Regs.insert(I, &LR);
}
// doms are now sorted in order of appearance. Try to merge them all, giving
// priority to the latest ones.
DomainValue *dv = nullptr;
while (!Regs.empty()) {
if (!dv) {
dv = Regs.pop_back_val()->Value;
// Force the first dv to match the current instruction.
dv->AvailableDomains = dv->getCommonDomains(available);
assert(dv->AvailableDomains && "Domain should have been filtered");
continue;
}
DomainValue *Latest = Regs.pop_back_val()->Value;
// Skip already merged values.
if (Latest == dv || Latest->Next)
continue;
if (merge(dv, Latest))
continue;
// If latest didn't merge, it is useless now. Kill all registers using it.
for (int i : used) {
assert(LiveRegs && "no space allocated for live registers");
if (LiveRegs[i].Value == Latest)
kill(i);
}
}
// dv is the DomainValue we are going to use for this instruction.
if (!dv) {
dv = alloc();
dv->AvailableDomains = available;
}
dv->Instrs.push_back(mi);
// Finally set all defs and non-collapsed uses to dv. We must iterate through
// all the operators, including imp-def ones.
for (MachineInstr::mop_iterator ii = mi->operands_begin(),
ee = mi->operands_end();
ii != ee; ++ii) {
MachineOperand &mo = *ii;
if (!mo.isReg()) continue;
for (int rx : regIndices(mo.getReg())) {
if (!LiveRegs[rx].Value || (mo.isDef() && LiveRegs[rx].Value != dv)) {
kill(rx);
setLiveReg(rx, dv);
}
}
}
}
void ExecutionDepsFix::processBasicBlock(MachineBasicBlock *MBB,
bool PrimaryPass) {
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
enterBasicBlock(MBB);
// If this block is not done, it makes little sense to make any decisions
// based on clearance information. We need to make a second pass anyway,
// and by then we'll have better information, so we can avoid doing the work
// to try and break dependencies now.
bool breakDependency = isBlockDone(MBB);
for (MachineInstr &MI : *MBB) {
if (!MI.isDebugValue()) {
bool Kill = false;
if (PrimaryPass)
Kill = visitInstr(&MI);
processDefs(&MI, breakDependency, Kill);
}
}
if (breakDependency)
processUndefReads(MBB);
leaveBasicBlock(MBB);
}
bool ExecutionDepsFix::isBlockDone(MachineBasicBlock *MBB) {
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
return MBBInfos[MBB].PrimaryCompleted &&
MBBInfos[MBB].IncomingCompleted == MBBInfos[MBB].PrimaryIncoming &&
MBBInfos[MBB].IncomingProcessed == MBB->pred_size();
}
bool ExecutionDepsFix::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &mf) {
if (skipFunction(*mf.getFunction()))
return false;
MF = &mf;
TII = MF->getSubtarget().getInstrInfo();
TRI = MF->getSubtarget().getRegisterInfo();
RegClassInfo.runOnMachineFunction(mf);
LiveRegs = nullptr;
assert(NumRegs == RC->getNumRegs() && "Bad regclass");
DEBUG(dbgs() << "********** FIX EXECUTION DEPENDENCIES: "
<< TRI->getRegClassName(RC) << " **********\n");
// If no relevant registers are used in the function, we can skip it
// completely.
bool anyregs = false;
const MachineRegisterInfo &MRI = mf.getRegInfo();
for (unsigned Reg : *RC) {
if (MRI.isPhysRegUsed(Reg)) {
anyregs = true;
break;
}
}
if (!anyregs) return false;
// Initialize the AliasMap on the first use.
if (AliasMap.empty()) {
// Given a PhysReg, AliasMap[PhysReg] returns a list of indices into RC and
// therefore the LiveRegs array.
AliasMap.resize(TRI->getNumRegs());
for (unsigned i = 0, e = RC->getNumRegs(); i != e; ++i)
for (MCRegAliasIterator AI(RC->getRegister(i), TRI, true);
AI.isValid(); ++AI)
AliasMap[*AI].push_back(i);
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
// Initialize the MMBInfos
for (auto &MBB : mf) {
MBBInfo InitialInfo;
MBBInfos.insert(std::make_pair(&MBB, InitialInfo));
}
/*
* We want to visit every instruction in every basic block in order to update
* it's execution domain or break any false dependencies. However, for the
* dependency breaking, we need to know clearances from all predecessors
* (including any backedges). One way to do so would be to do two complete
* passes over all basic blocks/instructions, the first for recording
* clearances, the second to break the dependencies. However, for functions
* without backedges, or functions with a lot of straight-line code, and
* a small loop, that would be a lot of unnecessary work (since only the
* BBs that are part of the loop require two passes). As an example,
* consider the following loop.
*
*
* PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT
* ^ |
* +----------------------------------+
*
* The iteration order is as follows:
* Naive: PH A B C D A' B' C' D'
* Optimized: PH A B C A' B' C' D
*
* Note that we avoid processing D twice, because we can entirely process
* the predecessors before getting to D. We call a block that is ready
* for its second round of processing `done` (isBlockDone). Once we finish
* processing some block, we update the counters in MBBInfos and re-process
* any successors that are now done.
*/
MachineBasicBlock *Entry = &*MF->begin();
ReversePostOrderTraversal<MachineBasicBlock*> RPOT(Entry);
SmallVector<MachineBasicBlock *, 4> Workqueue;
for (ReversePostOrderTraversal<MachineBasicBlock*>::rpo_iterator
MBBI = RPOT.begin(), MBBE = RPOT.end(); MBBI != MBBE; ++MBBI) {
MachineBasicBlock *MBB = *MBBI;
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
// N.B: IncomingProcessed and IncomingCompleted were already updated while
// processing this block's predecessors.
MBBInfos[MBB].PrimaryCompleted = true;
MBBInfos[MBB].PrimaryIncoming = MBBInfos[MBB].IncomingProcessed;
bool Primary = true;
Workqueue.push_back(MBB);
while (!Workqueue.empty()) {
MachineBasicBlock *ActiveMBB = &*Workqueue.back();
Workqueue.pop_back();
processBasicBlock(ActiveMBB, Primary);
bool Done = isBlockDone(ActiveMBB);
for (auto *Succ : ActiveMBB->successors()) {
if (!isBlockDone(Succ)) {
if (Primary) {
MBBInfos[Succ].IncomingProcessed++;
}
if (Done) {
MBBInfos[Succ].IncomingCompleted++;
}
if (isBlockDone(Succ)) {
Workqueue.push_back(Succ);
}
}
}
Primary = false;
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
}
// We need to go through again and finalize any blocks that are not done yet.
// This is possible if blocks have dead predecessors, so we didn't visit them
// above.
for (ReversePostOrderTraversal<MachineBasicBlock *>::rpo_iterator
MBBI = RPOT.begin(),
MBBE = RPOT.end();
MBBI != MBBE; ++MBBI) {
MachineBasicBlock *MBB = *MBBI;
if (!isBlockDone(MBB)) {
processBasicBlock(MBB, false);
// Don't update successors here. We'll get to them anyway through this
// loop.
}
}
// Clear the LiveOuts vectors and collapse any remaining DomainValues.
for (ReversePostOrderTraversal<MachineBasicBlock*>::rpo_iterator
MBBI = RPOT.begin(), MBBE = RPOT.end(); MBBI != MBBE; ++MBBI) {
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
auto FI = MBBInfos.find(*MBBI);
if (FI == MBBInfos.end() || !FI->second.OutRegs)
continue;
for (unsigned i = 0, e = NumRegs; i != e; ++i)
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
if (FI->second.OutRegs[i].Value)
release(FI->second.OutRegs[i].Value);
delete[] FI->second.OutRegs;
}
[ExecutionDepsFix] Improve clearance calculation for loops Summary: In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as `vcvtsi2sdq`. While this revision improved performance on a good number of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions (up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops such as: PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT ^ | +----------------------------------+ In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B. To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks that are not part of the loop. In summary, the iteration order is as follows: Before: PH A B C D A' Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D' Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block *done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows: - All Predecessors have completed primary processing - For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x. The intuition behind this criterion is as follows: We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g. in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However, we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder, the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors prior to us in reverse postorder. Reviewers: myatsina Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28759 llvm-svn: 293571
2017-01-31 00:37:03 +01:00
MBBInfos.clear();
UndefReads.clear();
Avail.clear();
Allocator.DestroyAll();
return false;
}