[llvm] r210721 - Teach LoopUnrollPass to respect loop unrolling hints in metadata.

Eric Christopher echristo at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 11:44:46 PDT 2014


On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Eli Bendersky" <eliben at google.com>
>> > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:15:35 PM
>> > Subject: [llvm] r210721 - Teach LoopUnrollPass to respect loop unrolling
>> > hints        in metadata.
>> >
>> > Author: eliben
>> > Date: Wed Jun 11 18:15:35 2014
>> > New Revision: 210721
>> >
>> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=210721&view=rev
>> > Log:
>> > Teach LoopUnrollPass to respect loop unrolling hints in metadata.
>> >
>> > See http://reviews.llvm.org/D4090 for more details.
>> >
>> > The Clang change that produces this metadata was committed in r210667
>> >
>> > Patch by Mark Heffernan.
>> >
>> >
>> > Added:
>> >     llvm/trunk/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/unroll-pragmas.ll
>> > Modified:
>> >     llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnrollPass.cpp
>> >
>> > Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnrollPass.cpp
>> > URL:
>> >
>> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnrollPass.cpp?rev=210721&r1=210720&r2=210721&view=diff
>> >
>> > ==============================================================================
>> > --- llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnrollPass.cpp (original)
>> > +++ llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnrollPass.cpp Wed Jun 11
>> > 18:15:35 2014
>> > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>> >  #include "llvm/IR/DataLayout.h"
>> >  #include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
>> >  #include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
>> > +#include "llvm/IR/Metadata.h"
>> >  #include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
>> >  #include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
>> >  #include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
>> > @@ -36,7 +37,8 @@ UnrollThreshold("unroll-threshold", cl::
>> >
>> >  static cl::opt<unsigned>
>> >  UnrollCount("unroll-count", cl::init(0), cl::Hidden,
>> > -  cl::desc("Use this unroll count for all loops, for testing
>> > purposes"));
>> > +  cl::desc("Use this unroll count for all loops including those with
>> > "
>> > +           "unroll_count pragma values, for testing purposes"));
>> >
>> >  static cl::opt<bool>
>> >  UnrollAllowPartial("unroll-allow-partial", cl::init(false),
>> >  cl::Hidden,
>> > @@ -47,6 +49,13 @@ static cl::opt<bool>
>> >  UnrollRuntime("unroll-runtime", cl::ZeroOrMore, cl::init(false),
>> >  cl::Hidden,
>> >    cl::desc("Unroll loops with run-time trip counts"));
>> >
>> > +// Maximum allowed unroll count for a loop being fully unrolled
>> > +// because of a pragma unroll(enable) statement (ie, metadata
>> > +// "llvm.loopunroll.enable" is true).  This prevents unexpected
>> > +// behavior like crashing when using this pragma on high trip count
>> > +// loops.
>> > +static const unsigned PragmaFullUnrollCountLimit = 1024;
>>
>> Please make this a cl::opt! Also, it needs to be a limit on the final loop
>> size, not on the unroll count itself (see the PartialThreshold variable near
>> the top of runOnLoop).
>>
>> > +
>> >  namespace {
>> >    class LoopUnroll : public LoopPass {
>> >    public:
>> > @@ -151,6 +160,63 @@ static unsigned ApproximateLoopSize(cons
>> >    return LoopSize;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +// Returns the value associated with the given metadata node name
>> > (for
>> > +// example, "llvm.loopunroll.count").  If no such named metadata
>> > node
>> > +// exists, then nullptr is returned.
>> > +static const ConstantInt *GetUnrollMetadataValue(const Loop *L,
>> > +                                                 StringRef Name) {
>> > +  MDNode *LoopID = L->getLoopID();
>> > +  if (!LoopID) return nullptr;
>> > +
>> > +  // First operand should refer to the loop id itself.
>> > +  assert(LoopID->getNumOperands() > 0 && "requires at least one
>> > operand");
>> > +  assert(LoopID->getOperand(0) == LoopID && "invalid loop id");
>> > +
>> > +  for (unsigned i = 1, e = LoopID->getNumOperands(); i < e; ++i) {
>> > +    const MDNode *MD = dyn_cast<MDNode>(LoopID->getOperand(i));
>> > +    if (!MD) continue;
>> > +
>> > +    const MDString *S = dyn_cast<MDString>(MD->getOperand(0));
>> > +    if (!S) continue;
>> > +
>> > +    if (Name.equals(S->getString())) {
>> > +      assert(MD->getNumOperands() == 2 &&
>> > +             "Unroll hint metadata should have two operands.");
>> > +      return cast<ConstantInt>(MD->getOperand(1));
>> > +    }
>> > +  }
>> > +  return nullptr;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +// Returns true if the loop has an unroll(enable) pragma.
>> > +static bool HasUnrollEnablePragma(const Loop *L) {
>> > +  const ConstantInt *EnableValue =
>> > +      GetUnrollMetadataValue(L, "llvm.loopunroll.enable");
>> > +  return (EnableValue && EnableValue->getZExtValue());
>> > +  return false;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +// Returns true if the loop has an unroll(disable) pragma.
>> > +static bool HasUnrollDisablePragma(const Loop *L) {
>> > +  const ConstantInt *EnableValue =
>> > +      GetUnrollMetadataValue(L, "llvm.loopunroll.enable");
>> > +  return (EnableValue && !EnableValue->getZExtValue());
>> > +  return false;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +// Check for unroll_count(N) pragma.  If found, return true and set
>> > +// Count to the integer parameter of the pragma.
>> > +static bool HasUnrollCountPragma(const Loop *L, int &Count) {
>> > +  const ConstantInt *CountValue =
>> > +      GetUnrollMetadataValue(L, "llvm.loopunroll.count");
>> > +  if (CountValue) {
>> > +    Count = CountValue->getZExtValue();
>> > +    assert(Count >= 1 && "Unroll count must be positive.");
>> > +    return true;
>> > +  }
>> > +  return false;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> >  bool LoopUnroll::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) {
>> >    if (skipOptnoneFunction(L))
>> >      return false;
>> > @@ -202,12 +268,49 @@ bool LoopUnroll::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPa
>> >      TripMultiple = SE->getSmallConstantTripMultiple(L, LatchBlock);
>> >    }
>> >
>> > -  bool Runtime = UserRuntime ? CurrentRuntime : UP.Runtime;
>> > +  // User-specified count (either as a command-line option or
>> > +  // constructor parameter) has highest precedence.
>> > +  unsigned Count = UserCount ? CurrentCount : 0;
>> > +
>> > +  // If there is no user-specified count, unroll pragmas have the
>> > next
>> > +  // highest precendence.
>> > +  if (Count == 0) {
>> > +    if (HasUnrollDisablePragma(L)) {
>> > +      // Loop has unroll(disable) pragma.
>> > +      return false;
>> > +    }
>> >
>> > -  // Use a default unroll-count if the user doesn't specify a value
>> > -  // and the trip count is a run-time value.  The default is
>> > different
>> > -  // for run-time or compile-time trip count loops.
>> > -  unsigned Count = UserCount ? CurrentCount : UP.Count;
>> > +    int PragmaCount;
>> > +    if (HasUnrollCountPragma(L, PragmaCount)) {
>> > +      if (PragmaCount == 1) {
>> > +        // Nothing to do.
>> > +        return false;
>> > +      }
>> > +      Count = PragmaCount;
>> > +      Threshold = NoThreshold;
>> > +    } else if (HasUnrollEnablePragma(L)) {
>> > +      // Loop has unroll(enable) pragma without a unroll_count
>> > pragma,
>> > +      // so unroll loop fully if possible.
>> > +      if (TripCount == 0) {
>> > +        DEBUG(dbgs() << "  Loop has unroll(enable) pragma but loop
>> > cannot be "
>> > +                        "fully unrolled because trip count is
>> > unknown.\n");
>>
>> This should not say "fully".
>>
>> > +        // Continue with standard heuristic unrolling.
>> > +      } else if (TripCount > PragmaFullUnrollCountLimit) {
>> > +        DEBUG(dbgs() << "  Loop has unroll(enable) pragma but loop
>> > cannot be "
>> > +                        "fully unrolled because loop count is
>> > greater than "
>> > +                     << PragmaFullUnrollCountLimit);
>> > +        // Continue with standard heuristic unrolling.
>>
>>
>> This should also not say "fully". In addition, this is misleading because
>> we might unroll this anyway (just not to the extent requested by the user.
>>
>> Also, I think that we should be using emitOptimizationRemark here (like
>> LoopVectorize does) instead of debug messages.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Hal
>>
>
> Thanks Hal. We'll address the comments once the patch is revised and gets
> back in.
>

Well, since it's out you might as well address them before it goes back in.

-eric



More information about the llvm-commits mailing list