All the invalidation issues and bugs in this seem to be fixed, it has
survived a full build of the test suite plus SPEC with asserts and ASan
enabled on the Clang binary used.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29815
llvm-svn: 294887
Without any loops, we don't even bother to build the standard analyses
used by loop passes. Without these, we can't run loop analyses or
invalidate them properly. Unfortunately, we did these things in the
wrong order which would allow a loop analysis manager's proxy to be
built but then not have the standard analyses built. When we went to do
the invalidation in the proxy thing would fall apart. In the test case
provided, it would actually crash.
The fix is to carefully check for loops first, and to in fact build the
standard analyses before building the proxy. This allows it to
correctly trigger invalidation for those standard analyses.
An alternative might seem to be to look at whether there are any loops
when doing invalidation, but this doesn't work when during the loop
pipeline run we delete the last loop. I've even included that as a test
case. It is both simpler and more robust to defer building the proxy
until there are definitely the standard set of analyses and indeed
loops.
This bug was uncovered by enabling GlobalsAA in the pipeline.
llvm-svn: 294728
This needs explicit requires of the optimization remark emission before
loop pass pipelines containing LICM as we no longer get it from the
inliner -- Argument Promotion may invalidate it. Technically the inliner
could also have broken this, but it never came up in testing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29595
llvm-svn: 294670
the main pipeline.
This is a very straight forward port. Nothing weird or surprising.
This brings the number of missing passes from the new PM's pipeline down
to three.
llvm-svn: 293249
With this the per-module pass pipeline is *extremely* close to the
legacy PM. The missing pieces are:
- PruneEH (or some equivalent)
- ArgumentPromotion
- LoopLoadElimination
- LoopUnswitch
I'm going to work through those in essentially that order but this seems
like a worthwhile incremental step toward the end state.
One difference in what I have here from the legacy PM is that I've
consolidated some of the per-function passes at the very end of the
pipeline into the main optimization function pipeline. The intervening
passes are *really* uninteresting and so this seems very likely to have
any effect other than minor improvement to locality.
Note that there are still some failures in the test suite, but the
compiler doesn't crash or assert.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29114
llvm-svn: 293241
loop-unswitch in the main pipelines for the new PM.
All of these now work, and Clang built using this pipeline can build the
test suite and SPEC without hitting any asserts of ASan failures.
There are still some bugs hiding though -- 7 tests regress with the new
PM. I'm going to be investigating these, but it seems worthwhile to at
least get the pipelines in place so that others can play with them, and
they aren't completely broken.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29113
llvm-svn: 293225
a lazy-asserting PoisoningVH.
AssertVH is fundamentally incompatible with cache-invalidation of
analysis results. The invaliadtion happens after the AssertingVH has
already fired. Instead, use a PoisoningVH that will assert if the
dangling handle is ever used rather than merely be assigned or
destroyed.
This patch also removes all of the (numerous) doomed attempts to work
around this fundamental incompatibility. It is a pretty significant
simplification IMO.
The most interesting change is in the Inliner where we still do some
clearing because we don't want to rely on the coarse grained
invalidation strategy of the containing pass manager. However, I prefer
the approach that contains this logic to the cleanup phase of the
Inliner, and I think we could enhance the CGSCC analysis management
layer to make this even better in the future if desired.
The rest is straight cleanup.
I've also added a test for one of the harder cases to work around: when
a *module analysis* contains many AssertingVHes pointing at functions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29006
llvm-svn: 292928
invalidation of deleted functions in GlobalDCE.
This was always testing a bug really triggered in GlobalDCE. Right now
we have analyses with asserting value handles into IR. As long as those
remain, when *deleting* an IR unit, we cannot wait for the normal
invalidation scheme to kick in even though it was designed to work
correctly in the face of these kinds of deletions. Instead, the pass
needs to directly handle invalidating the analysis results pointing at
that IR unit.
I've tought the Inliner about this and this patch teaches GlobalDCE.
This will handle the asserting VH case in the existing test as well as
other issues of the same fundamental variety. I've moved the test into
the GlobalDCE directory and added a comment explaining what is going on.
Note that we cannot simply require LVI here because LVI is too lazy.
llvm-svn: 292773
become unavailable.
The AssumptionCache is now immutable but it still needs to respond to
DomTree invalidation if it ended up caching one.
This lets us remove one of the explicit invalidates of LVI but the
other one continues to avoid hitting a latent bug.
llvm-svn: 292769
new PM's inliner.
The bug happens when we refine an SCC after having computed a proxy for
the FunctionAnalysisManager, and then proceed to compute fresh analyses
for functions in the *new* SCC using the manager provided by the old
SCC's proxy. *And* when we manage to mutate a function in this new SCC
in a way that invalidates those analyses. This can be... challenging to
reproduce.
I've managed to contrive a set of functions that trigger this and added
a test case, but it is a bit brittle. I've directly checked that the
passes run in the expected ways to help avoid the test just becoming
silently irrelevant.
This gets the new PM back to passing the LLVM test suite after the PGO
improvements landed.
llvm-svn: 292757
This adds the last remaining core feature of the loop pass pipeline in
the new PM and removes the last of the really egregious hacks in the
LICM tests.
Sadly, this requires really substantial changes in the unittests in
order to provide and maintain simplified loops. This is particularly
hard because for example LoopSimplify will try to fold undef branches to
an ideal direction and simplify the loop accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28766
llvm-svn: 292709
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
The test is slightly less strict than we'd like because of differences
in type pretty-printing.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292536
Use CHECK-NEXT to verify that a test breaks whenever unexpected passes,
analyses, or invalidations show up in default pipelines. The test case
is constructed so that we don't expect to invalidate anything, and needs
to be kept that way.
(Right now it does show some invalidations - all of those are intentional
and temporary.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28887
llvm-svn: 292530
LV no longer "requires" LCSSA and LoopSimplify, and instead forms
them internally as required. So, there's nothing preventing it from
being enabled.
llvm-svn: 292464
runnig LCSSA over them prior to running the loop pipeline.
This also teaches the loop PM to verify that LCSSA form is preserved
throughout the pipeline's run across the loop nest.
Most of the test updates just leverage this new functionality. One has to be
relaxed with the new PM as IVUsers is less powerful when it sees LCSSA input.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28743
llvm-svn: 292241
events.
This pass sometimes has a pointer to BlockFrequencyInfo so it needs
custom invalidation logic. It is also otherwise immutable so we can
reduce the number of invalidations that happen substantially.
llvm-svn: 292058
arguments much like the CGSCC pass manager.
This is a major redesign following the pattern establish for the CGSCC layer to
support updates to the set of loops during the traversal of the loop nest and
to support invalidation of analyses.
An additional significant burden in the loop PM is that so many passes require
access to a large number of function analyses. Manually ensuring these are
cached, available, and preserved has been a long-standing burden in LLVM even
with the help of the automatic scheduling in the old pass manager. And it made
the new pass manager extremely unweildy. With this design, we can package the
common analyses up while in a function pass and make them immediately available
to all the loop passes. While in some cases this is unnecessary, I think the
simplicity afforded is worth it.
This does not (yet) address loop simplified form or LCSSA form, but those are
the next things on my radar and I have a clear plan for them.
While the patch is very large, most of it is either mechanically updating loop
passes to the new API or the new testing for the loop PM. The code for it is
reasonably compact.
I have not yet updated all of the loop passes to correctly leverage the update
mechanisms demonstrated in the unittests. I'll do that in follow-up patches
along with improved FileCheck tests for those passes that ensure things work in
more realistic scenarios. In many cases, there isn't much we can do with these
until the loop simplified form and LCSSA form are in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28292
llvm-svn: 291651
This is an orthogonal and separated layer instead of being embedded
inside the pass manager. While it adds a small amount of complexity, it
is fairly minimal and the composability and control seems worth the
cost.
The logic for this ends up being nicely isolated and targeted. It should
be easy to experiment with different iteration strategies wrapped around
the CGSCC bottom-up walk using this kind of facility.
The mechanism used to track devirtualization is the simplest one I came
up with. I think it handles most of the cases the existing iteration
machinery handles, but I haven't done a *very* in depth analysis. It
does however match the basic intended semantics, and we can tweak or
tune its exact behavior incrementally as necessary. One thing that we
may want to revisit is freshly building the value handle set on each
iteration. While I don't think this will be a significant cost (it is
strictly fewer value handles but more churn of value handes than the old
call graph), it is conceivable that we'll want a somewhat more clever
tracking mechanism. My hope is to layer that on as a follow up patch
with data supporting any implementation complexity it adds.
This code also provides for a basic count heuristic: if the number of
indirect calls decreases and the number of direct calls increases for
a given function in the SCC, we assume devirtualization is responsible.
This matches the heuristics currently used in the legacy pass manager.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23114
llvm-svn: 290665
This requires custom handling because BasicAA caches handles to other
analyses and so it needs to trigger indirect invalidation.
This fixes one of the common crashes when using the new PM in real
pipelines. I've also tweaked a regression test to check that we are at
least handling the most immediate case.
I'm going to work at re-structuring this test some to both scale better
(rather than all being in one file) and check more invalidation paths in
a follow-up commit, but I wanted to get the basic bug fix in place.
llvm-svn: 290603
not really wired into the loop pass manager in a way that will let us
productively use these passes yet.
This lets the new PM get farther in basic testing which is useful for
establishing a good baseline of "doesn't explode". There are still
plenty of crashers in basic testing though, this just gets rid of some
noise that is well understood and not representing a specific or narrow
bug.
llvm-svn: 290601
inter-analysis dependencies) to use the new invalidation infrastructure.
This teaches it to invalidate itself when any of the peer function
AA results that it uses become invalid. We do this by just tracking the
originating IDs. I've kept it in a somewhat clunky API since some users
of AAResults are outside the new PM right now. We can clean this API up
if/when those users go away.
Secondly, it uses the registration on the outer analysis manager proxy
to trigger deferred invalidation when a module analysis result becomes
invalid.
I've included test cases that specifically try to trigger use-after-free
in both of these cases and they would crash or hang pretty horribly for
me even without ASan. Now they work nicely.
The `InvalidateAnalysis` utility pass required some tweaking to be
useful in this context and it still is pretty garbage. I'd like to
switch it back to the previous implementation and teach the explicit
invalidate method on the AnalysisManager to take care of correctly
triggering indirect invalidation, but I wanted to go ahead and send this
out so folks could see how all of this stuff works together in practice.
And, you know, that it does actually work. =]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27205
llvm-svn: 290595
Pretty boring and lame as-is but necessary. This is definitely a place
we'll end up with extension hooks longer term. =]
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28076
llvm-svn: 290449
I was staring at these and didn't realize these were module-layer
proxies as opposed to some other layer. Justin and I have a plan to
rename things to make the names themselves much easier to reason about,
but I at least want the CHECK lines to be precise for now.
llvm-svn: 290328
from the old pass manager in the new one.
I'm not trying to support (initially) the numerous options that are
currently available to customize the pass pipeline. If we end up really
wanting them, we can add them later, but I suspect many are no longer
interesting. The simplicity of omitting them will help a lot as we sort
out what the pipeline should look like in the new PM.
I've also documented to the best of my ability *why* each pass or group
of passes is used so that reading the pipeline is more helpful. In many
cases I think we have some questionable choices of ordering and I've
left FIXME comments in place so we know what to come back and revisit
going forward. But for now, I've left it as similar to the current
pipeline as I could.
Lastly, I've had to comment out several places where passes are not
ported to the new pass manager or where the loop pass infrastructure is
not yet ready. I did at least fix a few bugs in the loop pass
infrastructure uncovered by running the full pipeline, but I didn't want
to go too far in this patch -- I'll come back and re-enable these as the
infrastructure comes online. But I'd like to keep the comments in place
because I don't want to lose track of which passes need to be enabled
and where they go.
One thing that seemed like a significant API improvement was to require
that we don't build pipelines for O0. It seems to have no real benefit.
I've also switched back to returning pass managers by value as at this
API layer it feels much more natural to me for composition. But if
others disagree, I'm happy to go back to an output parameter.
I'm not 100% happy with the testing strategy currently, but it seems at
least OK. I may come back and try to refactor or otherwise improve this
in subsequent patches but I wanted to at least get a good starting point
in place.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28042
llvm-svn: 290325
Summary:
This never really got implemented, and was very hard to test before
a lot of the refactoring changes to make things more robust. But now we
can test it thoroughly and cleanly, especially at the CGSCC level.
The core idea is that when an inner analysis manager proxy receives the
invalidation event for the outer IR unit, it needs to walk the inner IR
units and propagate it to the inner analysis manager for each of those
units. For example, each function in the SCC needs to get an
invalidation event when the SCC gets one.
The function / module interaction is somewhat boring here. This really
becomes interesting in the face of analysis-backed IR units. This patch
effectively handles all of the CGSCC layer's needs -- both invalidating
SCC analysis and invalidating function analysis when an SCC gets
invalidated.
However, this second aspect doesn't really handle the
LoopAnalysisManager well at this point. That one will need some change
of design in order to fully integrate, because unlike the call graph,
the entire function behind a LoopAnalysis's results can vanish out from
under us, and we won't even have a cached API to access. I'd like to try
to separate solving the loop problems into a subsequent patch though in
order to keep this more focused so I've adapted them to the API and
updated the tests that immediately fail, but I've not added the level of
testing and validation at that layer that I have at the CGSCC layer.
An important aspect of this change is that the proxy for the
FunctionAnalysisManager at the SCC pass layer doesn't work like the
other proxies for an inner IR unit as it doesn't directly manage the
FunctionAnalysisManager and invalidation or clearing of it. This would
create an ever worsening problem of dual ownership of this
responsibility, split between the module-level FAM proxy and this
SCC-level FAM proxy. Instead, this patch changes the SCC-level FAM proxy
to work in terms of the module-level proxy and defer to it to handle
much of the updates. It only does SCC-specific invalidation. This will
become more important in subsequent patches that support more complex
invalidaiton scenarios.
Reviewers: jlebar
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mcrosier, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D27197
llvm-svn: 289317
Summary: For functions with profile data, we are confident that loop sink will be optimal in sinking code.
Reviewers: davidxl, hfinkel
Subscribers: mehdi_amini, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26155
llvm-svn: 286325
Summary:
This will allow us to revert LLD r284768, which added spaces to get MSys
echo to print what we want.
Reviewers: ruiu, inglorion, rafael
Subscribers: modocache, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26009
llvm-svn: 285237
manager, including both plumbing and logic to handle function pass
updates.
There are three fundamentally tied changes here:
1) Plumbing *some* mechanism for updating the CGSCC pass manager as the
CG changes while passes are running.
2) Changing the CGSCC pass manager infrastructure to have support for
the underlying graph to mutate mid-pass run.
3) Actually updating the CG after function passes run.
I can separate them if necessary, but I think its really useful to have
them together as the needs of #3 drove #2, and that in turn drove #1.
The plumbing technique is to extend the "run" method signature with
extra arguments. We provide the call graph that intrinsically is
available as it is the basis of the pass manager's IR units, and an
output parameter that records the results of updating the call graph
during an SCC passes's run. Note that "...UpdateResult" isn't a *great*
name here... suggestions very welcome.
I tried a pretty frustrating number of different data structures and such
for the innards of the update result. Every other one failed for one
reason or another. Sometimes I just couldn't keep the layers of
complexity right in my head. The thing that really worked was to just
directly provide access to the underlying structures used to walk the
call graph so that their updates could be informed by the *particular*
nature of the change to the graph.
The technique for how to make the pass management infrastructure cope
with mutating graphs was also something that took a really, really large
number of iterations to get to a place where I was happy. Here are some
of the considerations that drove the design:
- We operate at three levels within the infrastructure: RefSCC, SCC, and
Node. In each case, we are working bottom up and so we want to
continue to iterate on the "lowest" node as the graph changes. Look at
how we iterate over nodes in an SCC running function passes as those
function passes mutate the CG. We continue to iterate on the "lowest"
SCC, which is the one that continues to contain the function just
processed.
- The call graph structure re-uses SCCs (and RefSCCs) during mutation
events for the *highest* entry in the resulting new subgraph, not the
lowest. This means that it is necessary to continually update the
current SCC or RefSCC as it shifts. This is really surprising and
subtle, and took a long time for me to work out. I actually tried
changing the call graph to provide the opposite behavior, and it
breaks *EVERYTHING*. The graph update algorithms are really deeply
tied to this particualr pattern.
- When SCCs or RefSCCs are split apart and refined and we continually
re-pin our processing to the bottom one in the subgraph, we need to
enqueue the newly formed SCCs and RefSCCs for subsequent processing.
Queuing them presents a few challenges:
1) SCCs and RefSCCs use wildly different iteration strategies at
a high level. We end up needing to converge them on worklist
approaches that can be extended in order to be able to handle the
mutations.
2) The order of the enqueuing need to remain bottom-up post-order so
that we don't get surprising order of visitation for things like
the inliner.
3) We need the worklists to have set semantics so we don't duplicate
things endlessly. We don't need a *persistent* set though because
we always keep processing the bottom node!!!! This is super, super
surprising to me and took a long time to convince myself this is
correct, but I'm pretty sure it is... Once we sink down to the
bottom node, we can't re-split out the same node in any way, and
the postorder of the current queue is fixed and unchanging.
4) We need to make sure that the "current" SCC or RefSCC actually gets
enqueued here such that we re-visit it because we continue
processing a *new*, *bottom* SCC/RefSCC.
- We also need the ability to *skip* SCCs and RefSCCs that get merged
into a larger component. We even need the ability to skip *nodes* from
an SCC that are no longer part of that SCC.
This led to the design you see in the patch which uses SetVector-based
worklists. The RefSCC worklist is always empty until an update occurs
and is just used to handle those RefSCCs created by updates as the
others don't even exist yet and are formed on-demand during the
bottom-up walk. The SCC worklist is pre-populated from the RefSCC, and
we push new SCCs onto it and blacklist existing SCCs on it to get the
desired processing.
We then *directly* update these when updating the call graph as I was
never able to find a satisfactory abstraction around the update
strategy.
Finally, we need to compute the updates for function passes. This is
mostly used as an initial customer of all the update mechanisms to drive
their design to at least cover some real set of use cases. There are
a bunch of interesting things that came out of doing this:
- It is really nice to do this a function at a time because that
function is likely hot in the cache. This means we want even the
function pass adaptor to support online updates to the call graph!
- To update the call graph after arbitrary function pass mutations is
quite hard. We have to build a fairly comprehensive set of
data structures and then process them. Fortunately, some of this code
is related to the code for building the cal graph in the first place.
Unfortunately, very little of it makes any sense to share because the
nature of what we're doing is so very different. I've factored out the
one part that made sense at least.
- We need to transfer these updates into the various structures for the
CGSCC pass manager. Once those were more sanely worked out, this
became relatively easier. But some of those needs necessitated changes
to the LazyCallGraph interface to make it significantly easier to
extract the changed SCCs from an update operation.
- We also need to update the CGSCC analysis manager as the shape of the
graph changes. When an SCC is merged away we need to clear analyses
associated with it from the analysis manager which we didn't have
support for in the analysis manager infrsatructure. New SCCs are easy!
But then we have the case that the original SCC has its shape changed
but remains in the call graph. There we need to *invalidate* the
analyses associated with it.
- We also need to invalidate analyses after we *finish* processing an
SCC. But the analyses we need to invalidate here are *only those for
the newly updated SCC*!!! Because we only continue processing the
bottom SCC, if we split SCCs apart the original one gets invalidated
once when its shape changes and is not processed farther so its
analyses will be correct. It is the bottom SCC which continues being
processed and needs to have the "normal" invalidation done based on
the preserved analyses set.
All of this is mostly background and context for the changes here.
Many thanks to all the reviewers who helped here. Especially Sanjoy who
caught several interesting bugs in the graph algorithms, David, Sean,
and others who all helped with feedback.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D21464
llvm-svn: 279618
unit for use in the PreservedAnalyses set.
This doesn't have any important functional change yet but it cleans
things up and makes the analysis substantially more efficient by
avoiding querying through the type erasure for every analysis.
I also think it makes it much easier to reason about how analyses are
preserved when walking across pass managers and across IR unit
abstractions.
Thanks to Sean and Mehdi both for the comments and suggestions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D23691
llvm-svn: 279360
overloaded (and simpler).
Sean rightly pointed out in code review that we've started using
"wrapper pass" as a specific part of the old pass manager, and in fact
it is more applicable there. Here, we really have a pass *template* to
build a repeated pass, so call it that.
llvm-svn: 277689
manager.
While this has some utility for debugging and testing on its own, it is
primarily intended to demonstrate the technique for adding custom
wrappers that can provide more interesting interation behavior in
a nice, orthogonal, and composable layer.
Being able to write these kinds of very dynamic and customized controls
for running passes was one of the motivating use cases of the new pass
manager design, and this gives a hint at how they might look. The actual
logic is tiny here, and most of this is just wiring in the pipeline
parsing so that this can be widely used.
I'm adding this now to show the wiring without a lot of business logic.
This is a precursor patch for showing how a "iterate up to N times as
long as we devirtualize a call" utility can be added as a separable and
composable component along side the CGSCC pass management.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22405
llvm-svn: 277581
reason about and less error prone.
The core idea is to fully parse the text without trying to identify
passes or structure. This is done with a single state machine. There
were various bugs in the logic around this previously that were repeated
and scattered across the code. Having a single routine makes it much
easier to fix and get correct. For example, this routine doesn't suffer
from PR28577.
Then the actual pass construction is handled using *much* easier to read
code and simple loops, with particular pass manager construction sunk to
live with other pass construction. This is especially nice as the pass
managers *are* in fact passes.
Finally, the "implicit" pass manager synthesis is done much more simply
by forming "pre-parsed" structures rather than having to duplicate tons
of logic.
One of the bugs fixed by this was evident in the tests where we accepted
a pipeline that wasn't really well formed. Another bug is PR28577 for
which I have added a test case.
The code is less efficient than the previous code but I'm really hoping
that's not a priority. ;]
Thanks to Sean for the review!
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22724
llvm-svn: 277561
