[llvm-dev] InstCombine, graph rewriting, Equality saturation

Craig Topper via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Sep 12 11:37:36 PDT 2017

There's the explicit sinking code in the main worklist processing loop
around TryToSinkInstruction. I don't believe that can move code into a loop
since it can only move into a successor block with no predecessors. So I
don't believe that's what happened in the addressspace cast case.

Then there's accidental sinking that occurs when InstCombine looks at two
or more instructions with some in another basic block and combines them to
two or more instructions. In that case all of the combined instructions
will be created in the block that contains the instruction that started the
combine since that's going to be the insert location for the IRBuilder. I
think that's what happened in the addressspace cast case. I don't know how
to fix this without qualifying every transform that produces mutliple
instructions with a check that all the original instructions started in the
same basic block.


On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 2017 1:34 AM, "David Chisnall via llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The sinking in instcombine is not always a win.  We hit a case recently
> where instcombine made a hot loop in a benchmark significantly slower by
> moving an address-space cast instruction into a loop as part of its gep of
> addrspacecast to addrspacecast of gep transformation.  On our architecture,
> this translates to an extra instruction in a hot loop for the address-space
> cast *and* means that we then can’t use the complex addressing modes for
> the loads and stores because we have an address space cast in between the
> GEP and the memory op.  We end up increasing the number of instruction in
> the loop by around 20%, with a corresponding decrease in performance.
> My somewhat long-winded point is that I’m not convinced that InstCombine
> is doing sufficient reasoning when it moves instructions between basic
> blocks to determine that the moves actually make sense.
> My somewhat long-winded point is instead that IC shouldn't even bother
> trying to sink. I understand it may eventually expose other optimizations
> but it doesn't seem to be worth the complexity added. As you say, the
> heuristic is pretty simple (fold instructions to blocks with a single
> predecessor, IIRC, but don't quote me on that). There are cases where it
> regresses, and I'm not surprised as sinking is not done after a proper
> analysis (as, e.g. the one GVNSink or LICM are doing). You could probably
> catch some cases teaching IC about profile metadata when taking sink
> decisions, but that sounds like adding even more madness.
> --
> Davide
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170912/b1b44f2c/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list