[PATCH] D34373: [LV] Optimize for size when vectorizing loops with tiny trip count

Hal Finkel via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 20 10:37:52 PDT 2017


hfinkel added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34373#785485, @twoh wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34373#785367, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34373#784975, @twoh wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a right approach, but concerned that the experimental results I shared on https://reviews.llvm.org/D32451 show that it is generally better to not to vectorize the low trip count loops. @Ayal, I wonder if you have any results that this patch actually improves the performance. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > I know that we're currently missing opportunities for large vectorizable loops with low (static)  trip counts. Smaller inner loops are also good candidates for unpredicated vectorization, but we may need to be a bit careful because of modeling inaccuracies and phase-ordering effects (e.g. if we don't vectorize a loop, then we'll end up unrolling it when the unroller runs).
>
>
> Got it. My concern was for small single-level loops with low trip counts, as I observe them pretty frequently. I have no objection accepting this patch and improve the cost estimator separately.


Do you mean that you see such loops frequently with dynamically-small trip counts, or with static trip counts? I assume the small loops with (small) static trip counts will generally be unrolled.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D34373





More information about the llvm-commits mailing list