[LLVMdev] [polly] pass ordering

Sebastian Pop
Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:37:47 -0000

Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 05:53 PM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >polly is run very early and schedules the following passes before it
runs:
> >
> >/// @brief Schedule a set of canonicalization passes to prepare for
Polly
> >///
> >/// The set of optimization passes was partially taken/copied from the
> >/// set of default optimization passes in LLVM. It is used to bring the
code
> >/// into a canonical form that simplifies the analysis and optimization
passes
> >/// of Polly. The set of optimization passes scheduled here is probably
not yet
> >/// optimal. TODO: Optimize the set of canonicalization passes.
> >static void registerCanonicalicationPasses(llvm::PassManagerBase
&PM) {
> >   PM.add(llvm::createPromoteMemoryToRegisterPass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createCFGSimplificationPass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createTailCallEliminationPass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createCFGSimplificationPass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createReassociatePass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createLoopRotatePass());
> >   PM.add(llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass());
> >
> >   if (!SCEVCodegen)
> >     PM.add(polly::createIndVarSimplifyPass());
> >
> >   PM.add(polly::createCodePreparationPass());
> >   PM.add(polly::createRegionSimplifyPass());
>
> Right.
>
> >Sergei was saying that on some benchmarks PromoteMemoryToRegister was
causing
> >performance regressions when it is run with and without Polly and
scheduled that
> >early.
>
> Are you saying these passes add compile time overhead or rather that
> they cause problems with the performance of the compiled binary?

Sergei was looking at the performance of the generated code (not compile time),
and yes he looked at the impact of -O3 with the pre-passes of Polly as scheduled
now vs. plain -O3.

> This means the IR needs to be canonicalized enough to allow scalar
> evolution & Co to work.

Right, Sergei has also pointed out that PromoteMemoryToRegister is needed that
early because otherwise SCEV would not be able to recognize induction variables
allocated on the stack.

If we schedule polly in the LNO, this constraint would be satisfied.

> 2) The IR generated by Polly, should be well optimized through LLVM
>
> This means we do not only need to perform the optimizations that
> would have been necessary for the input code, but we also want to
> take advantage of optimization opportunities that show up after
> Polly regenerated code.
>
> When I generated the pass ordering, I did not spend a large amount
> of time to minimize it. I rather assumed, that to be sure the
> LLVM-IR is well optimized after Polly, it would be good to just run
> all passes LLVM passes over the output of Polly. So I just placed
> Polly at the very beginning. Now, to enable Polly to detect
> reasonably sized scops, I scheduled a set of canonicalization passes
> before Polly (taken from the beginning of the -O3 sequence).
>
> In terms of scop coverage and quality of the generated code this
> seems to be a good choice, but it obviously will increase the
> compile time compared to a run without Polly. What we could aim for
> is to run Polly at the beginning of the loop transformations e.g. by
> adding an extension point 'EP_LoopOptimizerStart'. Meaning before
> vectorization, before loop invariant code motion and before the loop
> idiom recognition. However, we would then need to evaluate what
> cleanup passes we need to run after Polly. For the classical code
> generation strategy we probably need a couple of scalar cleanups,
> with the scev based code generation, there is normally a lot less to
> do.
>

Right: let's try to see whether with SCEVcodegen we can have better
performance
when scheduling Polly in the LNO.

Sebastian
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation