thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization [Mar 2017]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev

2017-Feb-28 13:09 UTC

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

I have tried running both gvn and newgvn but it did not helped in hoisting the
alias checks:

Please check, maybe I have missed something.

<TestCase>
void foo (char *A, char *B, char *C, int len) {
  int i = 0;
  for (i=0 ; i< len; i++)
    A[i] = B[i] + C[i];
}

<Command>
  $ opt –O3 –gvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll
  $ opt –O3 –newgvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll

“test.ll” is attached, it got already vectorized by the approach running
vectorizer twice by annotate the remainder loop with metadata to limit the
vectorization factor for epilog vector loop.

Regards,
Ashutosh

From: anemet at apple.com [mailto:anemet at apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:33 AM
To: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>; Nema, Ashutosh
<Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>; Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com>;
Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>; mkuper at google.com; Mehdi
Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization


On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 01:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 11:47 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at
dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote:



On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel
at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 06:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh wrote:
Thanks for looking into this.

1) Issues with re running vectorizer:
Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while vectorizing epilog loop.
Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the results of already
computed alias checks.
With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but not sure about reusing
alias check result.
Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the alias check result ?

One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check result is really just a
conditional propagation problem; if we don't already have an optimization
that can combine these after the fact, then we should.

+Danny

Isn’t Extended SSA supposed to help with this?

Yes, it will solve this with no issue already.  GVN probably does already too.

even if if you have

if (a == b)
if (a == c)
 if (a == d)
 if (a == e)
 if (a == g)


and  we can prove a ... g equivalent, newgvn will eliminate them all and set all
the branches true.

If you need a simpler clean up pass, we could run it on sub-graphs.

Yes we probably don’t want to run a full GVN after the “loop-scheduling” passes.

FWIW, we could, just without the memory-dependence analysis enabled (i.e. set
the NoLoads constructor parameter to true). GVN is pretty fast in that mode.

OK.  Another data point is that I’ve seen cases in the past where the alias
checks required for the loop passes could enable GVN to remove redundant
loads/stores.  Currently we can only pick these up with LTO when GVN is rerun.

This is just GVN brokenness, newgvn should not have this problem.
If it does, i'd love to see it.

I thought that the problem is that we just don't run GVN after that point in
the pipeline.

Yeah, that is the problem but I think Danny misunderstood what I was trying to
say.

This was a datapoint to possibly rerun GVN with memory-awareness.



 -Hal



(I'm working on the last few parts of turning it on by default, but it
requires a new getModRefInfo interface to be able to get the last few testcases)




--

Hal Finkel

Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages

Leadership Computing Facility

Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170228/88123c95/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: test.ll
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 9897 bytes
Desc: test.ll
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170228/88123c95/attachment.obj>

Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev

2017-Feb-28 13:27 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Hoisting or removing?
Neither pass does hoisting, you'd need gvnhoist for that.

Even then:
Staring at your example, none of the checks are fully redundant  (IE they
are not dominated by other checks) or execute on all paths.

Thus, hoisting them  would be purely speculative code motion, which none of
our passes do.

If you would like these sets of checks to be removed, you would need to
place them in a place that they execute unconditionally.

Otherwise, this is not a standard code hoisting/removal transform.

The only redundancy i can see here at all is the repeated getelementptr
computation.
If you move it to the preheader, it will be eliminated.
Otherwise, none of the checks are redundant.

What would you hope to happen in this case?

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>
wrote:
> I have tried running both gvn and newgvn but it did not helped in hoisting
> the alias checks:
>
>
>
> Please check, maybe I have missed something.
>
>
>
> <TestCase>
>
> void foo (char *A, char *B, char *C, int len) {
>
>   int i = 0;
>
>   for (i=0 ; i< len; i++)
>
>     A[i] = B[i] + C[i];
>
> }
>
>
>
> <Command>
>
>   $ opt –O3 –gvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll
>
>   $ opt –O3 –newgvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll
>
>
>
> “test.ll” is attached, it got already vectorized by the approach running
> vectorizer twice by annotate the remainder loop with metadata to limit the
> vectorization factor for epilog vector loop.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ashutosh
>
>
>
> *From:* anemet at apple.com [mailto:anemet at apple.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:33 AM
> *To:* Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> *Cc:* Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>; Nema, Ashutosh <
> Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>; Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com>;
Renato Golin <
> renato.golin at linaro.org>; mkuper at google.com; Mehdi Amini <
> mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/27/2017 01:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/27/2017 11:47 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 02/27/2017 06:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> Thanks for looking into this.
>
>
>
> 1) Issues with re running vectorizer:
>
> Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while vectorizing epilog
> loop.
>
> Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the results of
> already computed alias checks.
>
> With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but not sure about
> reusing alias check result.
>
> Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the alias check result ?
>
>
> One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check result is really
> just a conditional propagation problem; if we don't already have an
> optimization that can combine these after the fact, then we should.
>
>
>
> +Danny
>
>
>
> Isn’t Extended SSA supposed to help with this?
>
>
>
> Yes, it will solve this with no issue already.  GVN probably does already
> too.
>
>
>
> even if if you have
>
>
>
> if (a == b)
>
> if (a == c)
>
>  if (a == d)
>
>  if (a == e)
>
>  if (a == g)
>
>
>
>
>
> and  we can prove a ... g equivalent, newgvn will eliminate them all and
> set all the branches true.
>
>
>
> If you need a simpler clean up pass, we could run it on sub-graphs.
>
>
>
> Yes we probably don’t want to run a full GVN after the “loop-scheduling”
> passes.
>
>
> FWIW, we could, just without the memory-dependence analysis enabled (i.e.
> set the NoLoads constructor parameter to true). GVN is pretty fast in that
> mode.
>
>
>
> OK.  Another data point is that I’ve seen cases in the past where the
> alias checks required for the loop passes could enable GVN to remove
> redundant loads/stores.  Currently we can only pick these up with LTO when
> GVN is rerun.
>
>
>
> This is just GVN brokenness, newgvn should not have this problem.
>
> If it does, i'd love to see it.
>
>
> I thought that the problem is that we just don't run GVN after that
point
> in the pipeline.
>
>
>
> Yeah, that is the problem but I think Danny misunderstood what I was
> trying to say.
>
>
>
> This was a datapoint to possibly rerun GVN with memory-awareness.
>
>
>
>
>  -Hal
>
>
>
>
> (I'm working on the last few parts of turning it on by default, but it
> requires a new getModRefInfo interface to be able to get the last few
> testcases)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Hal Finkel
>
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>
> Leadership Computing Facility
>
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170228/9a3c444f/attachment.html>

Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev

2017-Mar-01 05:12 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Sorry I misunderstood, gvn/newgvn/gvnhoist cannot help here as these checks are
not dominated by all paths.

Regards,
Ashutosh

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:58 PM
To: Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>
Cc: anemet at apple.com; Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>; Zaks, Ayal
<ayal.zaks at intel.com>; Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>;
mkuper at google.com; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Hoisting or removing?
Neither pass does hoisting, you'd need gvnhoist for that.

Even then:
Staring at your example, none of the checks are fully redundant  (IE they are
not dominated by other checks) or execute on all paths.

Thus, hoisting them  would be purely speculative code motion, which none of our
passes do.

If you would like these sets of checks to be removed, you would need to place
them in a place that they execute unconditionally.

Otherwise, this is not a standard code hoisting/removal transform.

The only redundancy i can see here at all is the repeated getelementptr
computation.
If you move it to the preheader, it will be eliminated.
Otherwise, none of the checks are redundant.

What would you hope to happen in this case?

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at
amd.com<mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>> wrote:
I have tried running both gvn and newgvn but it did not helped in hoisting the
alias checks:

Please check, maybe I have missed something.

<TestCase>
void foo (char *A, char *B, char *C, int len) {
  int i = 0;
  for (i=0 ; i< len; i++)
    A[i] = B[i] + C[i];
}

<Command>
  $ opt –O3 –gvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll
  $ opt –O3 –newgvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll

“test.ll” is attached, it got already vectorized by the approach running
vectorizer twice by annotate the remainder loop with metadata to limit the
vectorization factor for epilog vector loop.

Regards,
Ashutosh

From: anemet at apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com> [mailto:anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:33 AM
To: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>
Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at
dberlin.org>>; Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at
amd.com<mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>>; Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at
intel.com<mailto:ayal.zaks at intel.com>>; Renato Golin
<renato.golin at linaro.org<mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>>;
mkuper at google.com<mailto:mkuper at google.com>; Mehdi Amini
<mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>;
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:

On 02/27/2017 01:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:

On 02/27/2017 11:47 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at
dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel
at anl.gov>> wrote:

On 02/27/2017 06:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh wrote:
Thanks for looking into this.

1) Issues with re running vectorizer:
Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while vectorizing epilog loop.
Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the results of already
computed alias checks.
With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but not sure about reusing
alias check result.
Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the alias check result ?

One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check result is really just a
conditional propagation problem; if we don't already have an optimization
that can combine these after the fact, then we should.

+Danny

Isn’t Extended SSA supposed to help with this?

Yes, it will solve this with no issue already.  GVN probably does already too.

even if if you have

if (a == b)
if (a == c)
 if (a == d)
 if (a == e)
 if (a == g)

and  we can prove a ... g equivalent, newgvn will eliminate them all and set all
the branches true.

If you need a simpler clean up pass, we could run it on sub-graphs.

Yes we probably don’t want to run a full GVN after the “loop-scheduling” passes.

FWIW, we could, just without the memory-dependence analysis enabled (i.e. set
the NoLoads constructor parameter to true). GVN is pretty fast in that mode.

OK.  Another data point is that I’ve seen cases in the past where the alias
checks required for the loop passes could enable GVN to remove redundant
loads/stores.  Currently we can only pick these up with LTO when GVN is rerun.

This is just GVN brokenness, newgvn should not have this problem.
If it does, i'd love to see it.

I thought that the problem is that we just don't run GVN after that point in
the pipeline.

Yeah, that is the problem but I think Danny misunderstood what I was trying to
say.

This was a datapoint to possibly rerun GVN with memory-awareness.

 -Hal

(I'm working on the last few parts of turning it on by default, but it
requires a new getModRefInfo interface to be able to get the last few testcases)

--

Hal Finkel

Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages

Leadership Computing Facility

Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170301/16bbf714/attachment.html>

Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev

2017-Mar-14 13:00 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Summarizing the discussion on the implementation approaches.

Discussed about two approaches, first running ‘InnerLoopVectorizer’ again on the
epilog loop immediately after vectorizing the original loop within the same
vectorization pass, the second approach where re-running vectorization pass and
limiting vectorization factor of epilog loop by metadata.

<Approach-2>
Challenges with re-running the vectorizer pass:

1)      Reusing alias check result:

When vectorizer pass runs again it finds the epilog loop as a new loop and it
may generates alias check, this new alias check may overkill the gains of epilog
vectorization.

We should use the already computed alias check result instead of re computing
again.

2)      Rerun the vectorizer and hoist the new alias check:

It’s not possible to hoist alias checks as its not fully redundant (not
dominated by other checks), it’s not getting execute in all paths.

[cid:image003.jpg at 01D29CF1.122287F0]

NOTE: We cannot prepone alias check as its expensive compared to other checks.

<Approach-1>

1)      Current patch depends on the existing functionality of LoopVectorizer,
it uses ‘InnerLoopVectorizer’ again to vectorize the epilog loop, as it happens
in the same vectorization pass we have flexibility to reuse already computed
alias result check & limit vectorization factor for the epilog loop.

2)      It does not generate the blocks for new block layout explicitly, rather
it depends on ‘InnerLoopVectorizer::createEmptyLoop’ to generate new block
layout. The new block layout get automatically generated by calling the
‘InnerLoopVectorizer:: vectorize’ again.

3)      Block layout description with epilog loop vectorization is available at

https://reviews.llvm.org/file/data/fxg5vx3capyj257rrn5j/PHID-FILE-x6thnbf6ub55ep5yhalu/LayoutDescription.png

Approach-1 looks feasible, please comment if any objections.

Regards,
Ashutosh


From: Nema, Ashutosh
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 10:42 AM
To: 'Daniel Berlin' <dberlin at dberlin.org>
Cc: anemet at apple.com; Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>; Zaks, Ayal
<ayal.zaks at intel.com>; Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>;
mkuper at google.com; Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>; llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Sorry I misunderstood, gvn/newgvn/gvnhoist cannot help here as these checks are
not dominated by all paths.

Regards,
Ashutosh

From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:58 PM
To: Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com<mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at
amd.com>>
Cc: anemet at apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>; Hal Finkel
<hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>; Zaks, Ayal
<ayal.zaks at intel.com<mailto:ayal.zaks at intel.com>>; Renato
Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org<mailto:renato.golin at
linaro.org>>; mkuper at google.com<mailto:mkuper at google.com>;
Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at
apple.com>>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Hoisting or removing?
Neither pass does hoisting, you'd need gvnhoist for that.

Even then:
Staring at your example, none of the checks are fully redundant  (IE they are
not dominated by other checks) or execute on all paths.

Thus, hoisting them  would be purely speculative code motion, which none of our
passes do.

If you would like these sets of checks to be removed, you would need to place
them in a place that they execute unconditionally.

Otherwise, this is not a standard code hoisting/removal transform.

The only redundancy i can see here at all is the repeated getelementptr
computation.
If you move it to the preheader, it will be eliminated.
Otherwise, none of the checks are redundant.

What would you hope to happen in this case?

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at
amd.com<mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>> wrote:
I have tried running both gvn and newgvn but it did not helped in hoisting the
alias checks:

Please check, maybe I have missed something.

<TestCase>
void foo (char *A, char *B, char *C, int len) {
  int i = 0;
  for (i=0 ; i< len; i++)
    A[i] = B[i] + C[i];
}

<Command>
  $ opt –O3 –gvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll
  $ opt –O3 –newgvn test.ll –o test.opt.ll

“test.ll” is attached, it got already vectorized by the approach running
vectorizer twice by annotate the remainder loop with metadata to limit the
vectorization factor for epilog vector loop.

Regards,
Ashutosh

From: anemet at apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com> [mailto:anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 1:33 AM
To: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>
Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at
dberlin.org>>; Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at
amd.com<mailto:Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>>; Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at
intel.com<mailto:ayal.zaks at intel.com>>; Renato Golin
<renato.golin at linaro.org<mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>>;
mkuper at google.com<mailto:mkuper at google.com>; Mehdi Amini
<mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>;
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization


On Feb 27, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 01:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:


On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at
anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 11:47 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at
dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote:



On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at
apple.com<mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:

On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel
at anl.gov>> wrote:


On 02/27/2017 06:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh wrote:
Thanks for looking into this.

1) Issues with re running vectorizer:
Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while vectorizing epilog loop.
Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the results of already
computed alias checks.
With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but not sure about reusing
alias check result.
Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the alias check result ?

One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check result is really just a
conditional propagation problem; if we don't already have an optimization
that can combine these after the fact, then we should.

+Danny

Isn’t Extended SSA supposed to help with this?

Yes, it will solve this with no issue already.  GVN probably does already too.

even if if you have

if (a == b)
if (a == c)
 if (a == d)
 if (a == e)
 if (a == g)


and  we can prove a ... g equivalent, newgvn will eliminate them all and set all
the branches true.

If you need a simpler clean up pass, we could run it on sub-graphs.

Yes we probably don’t want to run a full GVN after the “loop-scheduling” passes.

FWIW, we could, just without the memory-dependence analysis enabled (i.e. set
the NoLoads constructor parameter to true). GVN is pretty fast in that mode.

OK.  Another data point is that I’ve seen cases in the past where the alias
checks required for the loop passes could enable GVN to remove redundant
loads/stores.  Currently we can only pick these up with LTO when GVN is rerun.

This is just GVN brokenness, newgvn should not have this problem.
If it does, i'd love to see it.

I thought that the problem is that we just don't run GVN after that point in
the pipeline.

Yeah, that is the problem but I think Danny misunderstood what I was trying to
say.

This was a datapoint to possibly rerun GVN with memory-awareness.


 -Hal

(I'm working on the last few parts of turning it on by default, but it
requires a new getModRefInfo interface to be able to get the last few testcases)



--

Hal Finkel

Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages

Leadership Computing Facility

Argonne National Laboratory


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170314/6b274a3b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18444 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170314/6b274a3b/attachment-0001.jpg>

Maybe Matching Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Mar 2017 - [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization

Maybe Matching Threads