rather than 'unsigned' for their costs.
For something like costs in particular there is a natural "negative"
value, that of savings or saved cost. As a consequence, there is a lot
of code that subtracts or creates negative values based on cost, all of
which is prone to awkwardness or bugs when dealing with an unsigned
type. Similarly, we *never* want these values to wrap, as that would
cause Very Bad code generation (likely percieved as an infinite loop as
we try to emit over 2^32 instructions or some such insanity).
All around 'int' seems a much better fit for these basic metrics. I've
added asserts to ensure that at least the TTI interface never returns
negative numbers here. If we ever have a use case for negative numbers,
we can remove this, but this way a bug where someone used '-1' to
produce a 'very large' cost will be caught by the assert.
This passes all tests, and is also UBSan clean.
No functional change intended.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11741
llvm-svn: 244080
Enable partial and runtime loop unrolling for NVPTX backend via
TTI::UnrollingPreferences with a small threshold. This partially unrolls
small loops which are often unrolled by the PTX to SASS compiler
and unrolling earlier can be beneficial.
llvm-svn: 242049
Summary:
Following the discussion on r241884, it's more reasonable to assume that a
target has no vector registers by default instead of letting every such
target overrides getNumberOfRegisters.
Therefore, this patch modifies BasicTTIImpl::getNumberOfRegisters to
return 0 when Vector is true, and partially reverts r241884 which
modifies NVPTXTTIImpl::getNumberOfRegisters.
It also fixes a performance bug in LoopVectorizer. Even if a target has
no vector registers, vectorization may still help ILP. So, we need both
checks to be false before disabling loop vectorization all together.
Reviewers: hfinkel
Subscribers: llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11108
llvm-svn: 241942
Summary:
Without this patch, LoopVectorizer in certain cases (see loop-vectorize.ll)
produces code with complex control flow which hurts later optimizations. Since
NVPTX doesn't have vector registers in LLVM's sense
(NVPTXTTI::getRegisterBitWidth(true) == 32), we for now declare no vector
registers to effectively disable loop vectorization.
Reviewers: jholewinski
Subscribers: jingyue, llvm-commits, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11089
llvm-svn: 241884
Summary:
This change is part of a series of commits dedicated to have a single
DataLayout during compilation by using always the one owned by the
module.
Reviewers: echristo
Subscribers: jholewinski, ted, yaron.keren, rafael, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11028
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 241775
Summary:
Some optimizations such as jump threading and loop unswitching can negatively
affect performance when applied to divergent branches. The divergence analysis
added in this patch conservatively estimates which branches in a GPU program
can diverge. This information can then help LLVM to run certain optimizations
selectively.
Test Plan: test/Analysis/DivergenceAnalysis/NVPTX/diverge.ll
Reviewers: resistor, hfinkel, eliben, meheff, jholewinski
Subscribers: broune, bjarke.roune, madhur13490, tstellarAMD, dberlin, echristo, jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D8576
llvm-svn: 234567
base which it adds a single analysis pass to, to instead return the type
erased TargetTransformInfo object constructed for that TargetMachine.
This removes all of the pass variants for TTI. There is now a single TTI
*pass* in the Analysis layer. All of the Analysis <-> Target
communication is through the TTI's type erased interface itself. While
the diff is large here, it is nothing more that code motion to make
types available in a header file for use in a different source file
within each target.
I've tried to keep all the doxygen comments and file boilerplate in line
with this move, but let me know if I missed anything.
With this in place, the next step to making TTI work with the new pass
manager is to introduce a really simple new-style analysis that produces
a TTI object via a callback into this routine on the target machine.
Once we have that, we'll have the building blocks necessary to accept
a function argument as well.
llvm-svn: 227685
type erased interface and a single analysis pass rather than an
extremely complex analysis group.
The end result is that the TTI analysis can contain a type erased
implementation that supports the polymorphic TTI interface. We can build
one from a target-specific implementation or from a dummy one in the IR.
I've also factored all of the code into "mix-in"-able base classes,
including CRTP base classes to facilitate calling back up to the most
specialized form when delegating horizontally across the surface. These
aren't as clean as I would like and I'm planning to work on cleaning
some of this up, but I wanted to start by putting into the right form.
There are a number of reasons for this change, and this particular
design. The first and foremost reason is that an analysis group is
complete overkill, and the chaining delegation strategy was so opaque,
confusing, and high overhead that TTI was suffering greatly for it.
Several of the TTI functions had failed to be implemented in all places
because of the chaining-based delegation making there be no checking of
this. A few other functions were implemented with incorrect delegation.
The message to me was very clear working on this -- the delegation and
analysis group structure was too confusing to be useful here.
The other reason of course is that this is *much* more natural fit for
the new pass manager. This will lay the ground work for a type-erased
per-function info object that can look up the correct subtarget and even
cache it.
Yet another benefit is that this will significantly simplify the
interaction of the pass managers and the TargetMachine. See the future
work below.
The downside of this change is that it is very, very verbose. I'm going
to work to improve that, but it is somewhat an implementation necessity
in C++ to do type erasure. =/ I discussed this design really extensively
with Eric and Hal prior to going down this path, and afterward showed
them the result. No one was really thrilled with it, but there doesn't
seem to be a substantially better alternative. Using a base class and
virtual method dispatch would make the code much shorter, but as
discussed in the update to the programmer's manual and elsewhere,
a polymorphic interface feels like the more principled approach even if
this is perhaps the least compelling example of it. ;]
Ultimately, there is still a lot more to be done here, but this was the
huge chunk that I couldn't really split things out of because this was
the interface change to TTI. I've tried to minimize all the other parts
of this. The follow up work should include at least:
1) Improving the TargetMachine interface by having it directly return
a TTI object. Because we have a non-pass object with value semantics
and an internal type erasure mechanism, we can narrow the interface
of the TargetMachine to *just* do what we need: build and return
a TTI object that we can then insert into the pass pipeline.
2) Make the TTI object be fully specialized for a particular function.
This will include splitting off a minimal form of it which is
sufficient for the inliner and the old pass manager.
3) Add a new pass manager analysis which produces TTI objects from the
target machine for each function. This may actually be done as part
of #2 in order to use the new analysis to implement #2.
4) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and the targets so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to type erase.
5) Work on narrowing the API between TTI and its clients so that it is
easier to understand and less verbose to forward.
6) Try to improve the CRTP-based delegation. I feel like this code is
just a bit messy and exacerbating the complexity of implementing
the TTI in each target.
Many thanks to Eric and Hal for their help here. I ended up blocked on
this somewhat more abruptly than I expected, and so I appreciate getting
it sorted out very quickly.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7293
llvm-svn: 227669
Summary:
Reapply r221772. The old patch breaks the bot because the @indvar_32_bit test
was run whether NVPTX was enabled or not.
IndVarSimplify should not widen an indvar if arithmetics on the wider
indvar are more expensive than those on the narrower indvar. For
instance, although NVPTX64 treats i64 as a legal type, an ADD on i64 is
twice as expensive as that on i32, because the hardware needs to
simulate a 64-bit integer using two 32-bit integers.
Split from D6188, and based on D6195 which adds NVPTXTargetTransformInfo.
Fixes PR21148.
Test Plan:
Added @indvar_32_bit that verifies we do not widen an indvar if the arithmetics
on the wider type are more expensive. This test is run only when NVPTX is
enabled.
Reviewers: jholewinski, eliben, meheff, atrick
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6196
llvm-svn: 221799
Summary:
IndVarSimplify should not widen an indvar if arithmetics on the wider
indvar are more expensive than those on the narrower indvar. For
instance, although NVPTX64 treats i64 as a legal type, an ADD on i64 is
twice as expensive as that on i32, because the hardware needs to
simulate a 64-bit integer using two 32-bit integers.
Split from D6188, and based on D6195 which adds NVPTXTargetTransformInfo.
Fixes PR21148.
Test Plan:
Added @indvar_32_bit that verifies we do not widen an indvar if the arithmetics
on the wider type are more expensive.
Reviewers: jholewinski, eliben, meheff, atrick
Reviewed By: atrick
Subscribers: jholewinski, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6196
llvm-svn: 221772
Summary:
It currently only implements hasBranchDivergence, and will be extended
in later diffs.
Split from D6188.
Test Plan: make check-all
Reviewers: jholewinski
Reviewed By: jholewinski
Subscribers: llvm-commits, meheff, eliben, jholewinski
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6195
llvm-svn: 221619
Chandler Carruth