[llvm] 38a8217 - [Loop Fusion] Integrate Loop Peeling into Loop Fusion (re-land after fixing ASAN build failures)
Sidharth Baveja via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jul 23 14:04:16 PDT 2020
Author: Sidharth Baveja
Date: 2020-07-23T21:02:04Z
New Revision: 38a82179315c7cdd3f2bc0044cc29451fddf4bd8
URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/38a82179315c7cdd3f2bc0044cc29451fddf4bd8
DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/38a82179315c7cdd3f2bc0044cc29451fddf4bd8.diff
LOG: [Loop Fusion] Integrate Loop Peeling into Loop Fusion (re-land after fixing ASAN build failures)
This patch adds the ability to peel off iterations of the first loop in loop
fusion. This can allow for both loops to have the same trip count, making it
legal for them to be fused together.
Here is a simple scenario peeling can be used in loop fusion:
for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
a[i] = a[i] + 3;
for (j = 1; j < 10; ++j)
b[j] = b[j] + 5;
Here is we can make use of peeling, and then fuse the two loops together. We
can peel off the 0th iteration of the loop i, and then combine loop i and j for
i = 1 to 10.
a[0] = a[0] +3;
for (i = 1; i < 10; ++i) {
a[i] = a[i] + 3;
b[i] = b[i] + 5;
}
Currently peeling with loop fusion is only supported for loops with constant
trip counts and a single exit point. Both unguarded and guarded loops are
supported.
Reviewed By: bmahjour (Bardia Mahjour), MaskRay (Fangrui Song)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D82927
Added:
llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_peel.ll
llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_unsafeblock_peel.ll
llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/nonadjacent_peel.ll
llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/peel.ll
Modified:
llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
Removed:
################################################################################
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
index 20edc8699d79..5573af834c59 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
+++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.cpp
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar/LoopFuse.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/AssumptionCache.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/DomTreeUpdater.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h"
@@ -53,6 +54,7 @@
#include "llvm/Analysis/PostDominators.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h"
+#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetTransformInfo.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Verifier.h"
#include "llvm/InitializePasses.h"
@@ -64,6 +66,7 @@
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/CodeMoverUtils.h"
+#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.h"
using namespace llvm;
@@ -114,6 +117,11 @@ static cl::opt<FusionDependenceAnalysisChoice> FusionDependenceAnalysis(
"Use all available analyses")),
cl::Hidden, cl::init(FUSION_DEPENDENCE_ANALYSIS_ALL), cl::ZeroOrMore);
+static cl::opt<unsigned> FusionPeelMaxCount(
+ "loop-fusion-peel-max-count", cl::init(0), cl::Hidden,
+ cl::desc("Max number of iterations to be peeled from a loop, such that "
+ "fusion can take place"));
+
#ifndef NDEBUG
static cl::opt<bool>
VerboseFusionDebugging("loop-fusion-verbose-debug",
@@ -157,6 +165,12 @@ struct FusionCandidate {
bool Valid;
/// Guard branch of the loop, if it exists
BranchInst *GuardBranch;
+ /// Peeling Paramaters of the Loop.
+ TTI::PeelingPreferences PP;
+ /// Can you Peel this Loop?
+ bool AbleToPeel;
+ /// Has this loop been Peeled
+ bool Peeled;
/// Dominator and PostDominator trees are needed for the
/// FusionCandidateCompare function, required by FusionCandidateSet to
@@ -168,11 +182,13 @@ struct FusionCandidate {
OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE;
FusionCandidate(Loop *L, const DominatorTree *DT,
- const PostDominatorTree *PDT, OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE)
+ const PostDominatorTree *PDT, OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE,
+ TTI::PeelingPreferences PP)
: Preheader(L->getLoopPreheader()), Header(L->getHeader()),
ExitingBlock(L->getExitingBlock()), ExitBlock(L->getExitBlock()),
Latch(L->getLoopLatch()), L(L), Valid(true),
- GuardBranch(L->getLoopGuardBranch()), DT(DT), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE) {
+ GuardBranch(L->getLoopGuardBranch()), PP(PP), AbleToPeel(canPeel(L)),
+ Peeled(false), DT(DT), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE) {
// Walk over all blocks in the loop and check for conditions that may
// prevent fusion. For each block, walk over all instructions and collect
@@ -243,6 +259,17 @@ struct FusionCandidate {
return Preheader;
}
+ /// After Peeling the loop is modified quite a bit, hence all of the Blocks
+ /// need to be updated accordingly.
+ void updateAfterPeeling() {
+ Preheader = L->getLoopPreheader();
+ Header = L->getHeader();
+ ExitingBlock = L->getExitingBlock();
+ ExitBlock = L->getExitBlock();
+ Latch = L->getLoopLatch();
+ verify();
+ }
+
/// Given a guarded loop, get the successor of the guard that is not in the
/// loop.
///
@@ -254,6 +281,8 @@ struct FusionCandidate {
assert(GuardBranch && "Only valid on guarded loops.");
assert(GuardBranch->isConditional() &&
"Expecting guard to be a conditional branch.");
+ if (Peeled)
+ return GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1);
return (GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0) == Preheader)
? GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1)
: GuardBranch->getSuccessor(0);
@@ -515,13 +544,17 @@ struct LoopFuser {
ScalarEvolution &SE;
PostDominatorTree &PDT;
OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE;
+ AssumptionCache &AC;
+
+ const TargetTransformInfo &TTI;
public:
LoopFuser(LoopInfo &LI, DominatorTree &DT, DependenceInfo &DI,
ScalarEvolution &SE, PostDominatorTree &PDT,
- OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE, const DataLayout &DL)
+ OptimizationRemarkEmitter &ORE, const DataLayout &DL,
+ AssumptionCache &AC, const TargetTransformInfo &TTI)
: LDT(LI), DTU(DT, PDT, DomTreeUpdater::UpdateStrategy::Lazy), LI(LI),
- DT(DT), DI(DI), SE(SE), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE) {}
+ DT(DT), DI(DI), SE(SE), PDT(PDT), ORE(ORE), AC(AC), TTI(TTI) {}
/// This is the main entry point for loop fusion. It will traverse the
/// specified function and collect candidate loops to fuse, starting at the
@@ -606,7 +639,9 @@ struct LoopFuser {
/// Flow Equivalent sets, sorted by dominance.
void collectFusionCandidates(const LoopVector &LV) {
for (Loop *L : LV) {
- FusionCandidate CurrCand(L, &DT, &PDT, ORE);
+ TTI::PeelingPreferences PP =
+ gatherPeelingPreferences(L, SE, TTI, None, None);
+ FusionCandidate CurrCand(L, &DT, &PDT, ORE, PP);
if (!CurrCand.isEligibleForFusion(SE))
continue;
@@ -656,33 +691,133 @@ struct LoopFuser {
/// Determine if two fusion candidates have the same trip count (i.e., they
/// execute the same number of iterations).
///
- /// Note that for now this method simply returns a boolean value because there
- /// are no mechanisms in loop fusion to handle
diff erent trip counts. In the
- /// future, this behaviour can be extended to adjust one of the loops to make
- /// the trip counts equal (e.g., loop peeling). When this is added, this
- /// interface may need to change to return more information than just a
- /// boolean value.
- bool identicalTripCounts(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
- const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+ /// This function will return a pair of values. The first is a boolean,
+ /// stating whether or not the two candidates are known at compile time to
+ /// have the same TripCount. The second is the
diff erence in the two
+ /// TripCounts. This information can be used later to determine whether or not
+ /// peeling can be performed on either one of the candiates.
+ std::pair<bool, Optional<unsigned>>
+ haveIdenticalTripCounts(const FusionCandidate &FC0,
+ const FusionCandidate &FC1) const {
+
const SCEV *TripCount0 = SE.getBackedgeTakenCount(FC0.L);
if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(TripCount0)) {
UncomputableTripCount++;
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Trip count of first loop could not be computed!");
- return false;
+ return {false, None};
}
const SCEV *TripCount1 = SE.getBackedgeTakenCount(FC1.L);
if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(TripCount1)) {
UncomputableTripCount++;
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Trip count of second loop could not be computed!");
- return false;
+ return {false, None};
}
+
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "\tTrip counts: " << *TripCount0 << " & "
<< *TripCount1 << " are "
<< (TripCount0 == TripCount1 ? "identical" : "
diff erent")
<< "\n");
- return (TripCount0 == TripCount1);
+ if (TripCount0 == TripCount1)
+ return {true, 0};
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "The loops do not have the same tripcount, "
+ "determining the
diff erence between trip counts\n");
+
+ // Currently only considering loops with a single exit point
+ // and a non-constant trip count.
+ const unsigned TC0 = SE.getSmallConstantTripCount(FC0.L);
+ const unsigned TC1 = SE.getSmallConstantTripCount(FC1.L);
+
+ // If any of the tripcounts are zero that means that loop(s) do not have
+ // a single exit or a constant tripcount.
+ if (TC0 == 0 || TC1 == 0) {
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Loop(s) do not have a single exit point or do not "
+ "have a constant number of iterations. Peeling "
+ "is not benefical\n");
+ return {false, None};
+ }
+
+ Optional<unsigned> Difference = None;
+ int Diff = TC0 - TC1;
+
+ if (Diff > 0)
+ Difference = Diff;
+ else {
+ LLVM_DEBUG(
+ dbgs() << "Difference is less than 0. FC1 (second loop) has more "
+ "iterations than the first one. Currently not supported\n");
+ }
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Difference in loop trip count is: " << Difference
+ << "\n");
+
+ return {false, Difference};
+ }
+
+ void peelFusionCandidate(FusionCandidate &FC0, const FusionCandidate &FC1,
+ unsigned PeelCount) {
+ assert(FC0.AbleToPeel && "Should be able to peel loop");
+
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Attempting to peel first " << PeelCount
+ << " iterations of the first loop. \n");
+
+ FC0.Peeled = peelLoop(FC0.L, PeelCount, &LI, &SE, &DT, &AC, true);
+ if (FC0.Peeled) {
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Done Peeling\n");
+
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+ auto IdenticalTripCount = haveIdenticalTripCounts(FC0, FC1);
+
+ assert(IdenticalTripCount.first && *IdenticalTripCount.second == 0 &&
+ "Loops should have identical trip counts after peeling");
+#endif
+
+ FC0.PP.PeelCount += PeelCount;
+
+ // Peeling does not update the PDT
+ PDT.recalculate(*FC0.Preheader->getParent());
+
+ FC0.updateAfterPeeling();
+
+ // In this case the iterations of the loop are constant, so the first
+ // loop will execute completely (will not jump from one of
+ // the peeled blocks to the second loop). Here we are updating the
+ // branch conditions of each of the peeled blocks, such that it will
+ // branch to its successor which is not the preheader of the second loop
+ // in the case of unguarded loops, or the succesors of the exit block of
+ // the first loop otherwise. Doing this update will ensure that the entry
+ // block of the first loop dominates the entry block of the second loop.
+ BasicBlock *BB =
+ FC0.GuardBranch ? FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor() : FC1.Preheader;
+ if (BB) {
+ SmallVector<DominatorTree::UpdateType, 8> TreeUpdates;
+ SmallVector<Instruction *, 8> WorkList;
+ for (BasicBlock *Pred : predecessors(BB)) {
+ if (Pred != FC0.ExitBlock) {
+ WorkList.emplace_back(Pred->getTerminator());
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(
+ DominatorTree::UpdateType(DominatorTree::Delete, Pred, BB));
+ }
+ }
+ // Cannot modify the predecessors inside the above loop as it will cause
+ // the iterators to be nullptrs, causing memory errors.
+ for (Instruction *CurrentBranch: WorkList) {
+ BasicBlock *Succ = CurrentBranch->getSuccessor(0);
+ if (Succ == BB)
+ Succ = CurrentBranch->getSuccessor(1);
+ ReplaceInstWithInst(CurrentBranch, BranchInst::Create(Succ));
+ }
+
+ DTU.applyUpdates(TreeUpdates);
+ DTU.flush();
+ }
+ LLVM_DEBUG(
+ dbgs() << "Sucessfully peeled " << FC0.PP.PeelCount
+ << " iterations from the first loop.\n"
+ "Both Loops have the same number of iterations now.\n");
+ }
}
/// Walk each set of control flow equivalent fusion candidates and attempt to
@@ -716,7 +851,32 @@ struct LoopFuser {
FC0->verify();
FC1->verify();
- if (!identicalTripCounts(*FC0, *FC1)) {
+ // Check if the candidates have identical tripcounts (first value of
+ // pair), and if not check the
diff erence in the tripcounts between
+ // the loops (second value of pair). The
diff erence is not equal to
+ // None iff the loops iterate a constant number of times, and have a
+ // single exit.
+ std::pair<bool, Optional<unsigned>> IdenticalTripCountRes =
+ haveIdenticalTripCounts(*FC0, *FC1);
+ bool SameTripCount = IdenticalTripCountRes.first;
+ Optional<unsigned> TCDifference = IdenticalTripCountRes.second;
+
+ // Here we are checking that FC0 (the first loop) can be peeled, and
+ // both loops have
diff erent tripcounts.
+ if (FC0->AbleToPeel && !SameTripCount && TCDifference) {
+ if (*TCDifference > FusionPeelMaxCount) {
+ LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs()
+ << "Difference in loop trip counts: " << *TCDifference
+ << " is greater than maximum peel count specificed: "
+ << FusionPeelMaxCount << "\n");
+ } else {
+ // Dependent on peeling being performed on the first loop, and
+ // assuming all other conditions for fusion return true.
+ SameTripCount = true;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (!SameTripCount) {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidates do not have identical trip "
"counts. Not fusing.\n");
reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
@@ -734,7 +894,7 @@ struct LoopFuser {
// Ensure that FC0 and FC1 have identical guards.
// If one (or both) are not guarded, this check is not necessary.
if (FC0->GuardBranch && FC1->GuardBranch &&
- !haveIdenticalGuards(*FC0, *FC1)) {
+ !haveIdenticalGuards(*FC0, *FC1) && !TCDifference) {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Fusion candidates do not have identical "
"guards. Not Fusing.\n");
reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemarkMissed>(*FC0, *FC1,
@@ -803,13 +963,23 @@ struct LoopFuser {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "\tFusion is performed: " << *FC0 << " and "
<< *FC1 << "\n");
+ FusionCandidate FC0Copy = *FC0;
+ // Peel the loop after determining that fusion is legal. The Loops
+ // will still be safe to fuse after the peeling is performed.
+ bool Peel = TCDifference && *TCDifference > 0;
+ if (Peel)
+ peelFusionCandidate(FC0Copy, *FC1, *TCDifference);
+
// Report fusion to the Optimization Remarks.
// Note this needs to be done *before* performFusion because
// performFusion will change the original loops, making it not
// possible to identify them after fusion is complete.
- reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemark>(*FC0, *FC1, FuseCounter);
+ reportLoopFusion<OptimizationRemark>((Peel ? FC0Copy : *FC0), *FC1,
+ FuseCounter);
- FusionCandidate FusedCand(performFusion(*FC0, *FC1), &DT, &PDT, ORE);
+ FusionCandidate FusedCand(
+ performFusion((Peel ? FC0Copy : *FC0), *FC1), &DT, &PDT, ORE,
+ FC0Copy.PP);
FusedCand.verify();
assert(FusedCand.isEligibleForFusion(SE) &&
"Fused candidate should be eligible for fusion!");
@@ -1086,16 +1256,17 @@ struct LoopFuser {
return (FC1.GuardBranch->getSuccessor(1) == FC1.Preheader);
}
- /// Simplify the condition of the latch branch of \p FC to true, when both of
- /// its successors are the same.
+ /// Modify the latch branch of FC to be unconditional since successors of the
+ /// branch are the same.
void simplifyLatchBranch(const FusionCandidate &FC) const {
BranchInst *FCLatchBranch = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(FC.Latch->getTerminator());
if (FCLatchBranch) {
assert(FCLatchBranch->isConditional() &&
FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(0) == FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(1) &&
"Expecting the two successors of FCLatchBranch to be the same");
- FCLatchBranch->setCondition(
- llvm::ConstantInt::getTrue(FCLatchBranch->getCondition()->getType()));
+ BranchInst *NewBranch =
+ BranchInst::Create(FCLatchBranch->getSuccessor(0));
+ ReplaceInstWithInst(FCLatchBranch, NewBranch);
}
}
@@ -1155,7 +1326,8 @@ struct LoopFuser {
if (FC0.GuardBranch)
return fuseGuardedLoops(FC0, FC1);
- assert(FC1.Preheader == FC0.ExitBlock);
+ assert(FC1.Preheader ==
+ (FC0.Peeled ? FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor() : FC0.ExitBlock));
assert(FC1.Preheader->size() == 1 &&
FC1.Preheader->getSingleSuccessor() == FC1.Header);
@@ -1197,12 +1369,27 @@ struct LoopFuser {
// to FC1.Header? I think this is basically what the three sequences are
// trying to accomplish; however, doing this directly in the CFG may mean
// the DT/PDT becomes invalid
- FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Preheader,
- FC1.Header);
- TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
- DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Preheader));
- TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
- DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+ if (!FC0.Peeled) {
+ FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Preheader,
+ FC1.Header);
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Preheader));
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+ } else {
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitBlock, FC1.Preheader));
+
+ // Remove the ExitBlock of the first Loop (also not needed)
+ FC0.ExitingBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.ExitBlock,
+ FC1.Header);
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Delete, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC0.ExitBlock));
+ FC0.ExitBlock->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Insert, FC0.ExitingBlock, FC1.Header));
+ new UnreachableInst(FC0.ExitBlock->getContext(), FC0.ExitBlock);
+ }
// The pre-header of L1 is not necessary anymore.
assert(pred_begin(FC1.Preheader) == pred_end(FC1.Preheader));
@@ -1246,7 +1433,7 @@ struct LoopFuser {
FC0.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.Header, FC1.Header);
FC1.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Header, FC0.Header);
- // Change the condition of FC0 latch branch to true, as both successors of
+ // Modify the latch branch of FC0 to be unconditional as both successors of
// the branch are the same.
simplifyLatchBranch(FC0);
@@ -1268,6 +1455,11 @@ struct LoopFuser {
LI.removeBlock(FC1.Preheader);
DTU.deleteBB(FC1.Preheader);
+ if (FC0.Peeled) {
+ LI.removeBlock(FC0.ExitBlock);
+ DTU.deleteBB(FC0.ExitBlock);
+ }
+
DTU.flush();
// Is there a way to keep SE up-to-date so we don't need to forget the loops
@@ -1364,10 +1556,15 @@ struct LoopFuser {
BasicBlock *FC1GuardBlock = FC1.GuardBranch->getParent();
BasicBlock *FC0NonLoopBlock = FC0.getNonLoopBlock();
BasicBlock *FC1NonLoopBlock = FC1.getNonLoopBlock();
+ BasicBlock *FC0ExitBlockSuccessor = FC0.ExitBlock->getUniqueSuccessor();
// Move instructions from the exit block of FC0 to the beginning of the exit
- // block of FC1.
- moveInstructionsToTheBeginning(*FC0.ExitBlock, *FC1.ExitBlock, DT, PDT, DI);
+ // block of FC1, in the case that the FC0 loop has not been peeled. In the
+ // case that FC0 loop is peeled, then move the instructions of the successor
+ // of the FC0 Exit block to the beginning of the exit block of FC1.
+ moveInstructionsToTheBeginning(
+ (FC0.Peeled ? *FC0ExitBlockSuccessor : *FC0.ExitBlock), *FC1.ExitBlock,
+ DT, PDT, DI);
// Move instructions from the guard block of FC1 to the end of the guard
// block of FC0.
@@ -1387,8 +1584,9 @@ struct LoopFuser {
// for FC1 (where FC1 guard would have gone if FC1 was not executed).
FC1NonLoopBlock->replacePhiUsesWith(FC1GuardBlock, FC0GuardBlock);
FC0.GuardBranch->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0NonLoopBlock, FC1NonLoopBlock);
- FC0.ExitBlock->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1GuardBlock,
- FC1.Header);
+
+ BasicBlock *BBToUpdate = FC0.Peeled ? FC0ExitBlockSuccessor : FC0.ExitBlock;
+ BBToUpdate->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1GuardBlock, FC1.Header);
// The guard of FC1 is not necessary anymore.
FC1.GuardBranch->eraseFromParent();
@@ -1403,6 +1601,15 @@ struct LoopFuser {
TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
DominatorTree::Insert, FC0GuardBlock, FC1NonLoopBlock));
+ if (FC0.Peeled) {
+ // Remove the Block after the ExitBlock of FC0
+ TreeUpdates.emplace_back(DominatorTree::UpdateType(
+ DominatorTree::Delete, FC0ExitBlockSuccessor, FC1GuardBlock));
+ FC0ExitBlockSuccessor->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
+ new UnreachableInst(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor->getContext(),
+ FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+ }
+
assert(pred_begin(FC1GuardBlock) == pred_end(FC1GuardBlock) &&
"Expecting guard block to have no predecessors");
assert(succ_begin(FC1GuardBlock) == succ_end(FC1GuardBlock) &&
@@ -1509,7 +1716,7 @@ struct LoopFuser {
FC0.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC0.Header, FC1.Header);
FC1.Latch->getTerminator()->replaceUsesOfWith(FC1.Header, FC0.Header);
- // Change the condition of FC0 latch branch to true, as both successors of
+ // Modify the latch branch of FC0 to be unconditional as both successors of
// the branch are the same.
simplifyLatchBranch(FC0);
@@ -1540,6 +1747,10 @@ struct LoopFuser {
LI.removeBlock(FC1GuardBlock);
LI.removeBlock(FC1.Preheader);
LI.removeBlock(FC0.ExitBlock);
+ if (FC0.Peeled) {
+ LI.removeBlock(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+ DTU.deleteBB(FC0ExitBlockSuccessor);
+ }
DTU.deleteBB(FC1GuardBlock);
DTU.deleteBB(FC1.Preheader);
DTU.deleteBB(FC0.ExitBlock);
@@ -1606,6 +1817,8 @@ struct LoopFuseLegacy : public FunctionPass {
AU.addRequired<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>();
AU.addRequired<OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass>();
AU.addRequired<DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass>();
+ AU.addRequired<AssumptionCacheTracker>();
+ AU.addRequired<TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass>();
AU.addPreserved<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>();
AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>();
@@ -1622,9 +1835,12 @@ struct LoopFuseLegacy : public FunctionPass {
auto &SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>().getSE();
auto &PDT = getAnalysis<PostDominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getPostDomTree();
auto &ORE = getAnalysis<OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass>().getORE();
-
+ auto &AC = getAnalysis<AssumptionCacheTracker>().getAssumptionCache(F);
+ const TargetTransformInfo &TTI =
+ getAnalysis<TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass>().getTTI(F);
const DataLayout &DL = F.getParent()->getDataLayout();
- LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL);
+
+ LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL, AC, TTI);
return LF.fuseLoops(F);
}
};
@@ -1637,9 +1853,11 @@ PreservedAnalyses LoopFusePass::run(Function &F, FunctionAnalysisManager &AM) {
auto &SE = AM.getResult<ScalarEvolutionAnalysis>(F);
auto &PDT = AM.getResult<PostDominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);
auto &ORE = AM.getResult<OptimizationRemarkEmitterAnalysis>(F);
-
+ auto &AC = AM.getResult<AssumptionAnalysis>(F);
+ const TargetTransformInfo &TTI = AM.getResult<TargetIRAnalysis>(F);
const DataLayout &DL = F.getParent()->getDataLayout();
- LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL);
+
+ LoopFuser LF(LI, DT, DI, SE, PDT, ORE, DL, AC, TTI);
bool Changed = LF.fuseLoops(F);
if (!Changed)
return PreservedAnalyses::all();
@@ -1662,6 +1880,8 @@ INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DominatorTreeWrapperPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(DependenceAnalysisWrapperPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopInfoWrapperPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(OptimizationRemarkEmitterWrapperPass)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(AssumptionCacheTracker)
+INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(TargetTransformInfoWrapperPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(LoopFuseLegacy, "loop-fusion", "Loop Fusion", false, false)
FunctionPass *llvm::createLoopFusePass() { return new LoopFuseLegacy(); }
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_peel.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_peel.ll
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..44b2f18b2d3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_peel.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+; RUN: opt -S -loop-fusion -loop-fusion-peel-max-count=3 < %s | FileCheck %s
+
+; Tests if we are able to fuse two guarded loops which have constant but
+;
diff erent trip counts. The first two iterations of the first loop should be
+; peeled off, and then the loops should be fused together.
+
+ at B = common global [1024 x i32] zeroinitializer, align 16
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: void @main(i32* noalias %A)
+; CHECK-NEXT: entry:
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp4, label %for.first.entry, label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.first.entry
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel.begin
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.begin:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel
+; CHECK: for.first.peel:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.peel.next
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel2
+; CHECK: for.first.peel2:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.peel.next1
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next1:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel.next11
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next11:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.entry.peel.newph
+; CHECK: for.first.entry.peel.newph:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first
+; CHECK: for.first:
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp3, label %for.first, label %for.second.exit
+; CHECK: for.second.exit:
+; CHECK: br label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.end:
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret void
+
+define void @main(i32* noalias %A) {
+entry:
+ %cmp4 = icmp slt i64 0, 45
+ br i1 %cmp4, label %for.first.entry, label %for.second.guard
+
+for.first.entry: ; preds = %entry
+ br label %for.first
+
+for.first: ; preds = %for.first.entry, %for.first
+ %i.05 = phi i64 [ %inc, %for.first ], [ 0, %for.first.entry ]
+ %sub = sub nsw i64 %i.05, 3
+ %add = add nsw i64 %i.05, 3
+ %mul = mul nsw i64 %sub, %add
+ %rem = srem i64 %mul, %i.05
+ %conv = trunc i64 %rem to i32
+ %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 %i.05
+ store i32 %conv, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
+ %inc = add nsw i64 %i.05, 1
+ %cmp = icmp slt i64 %inc, 45
+ br i1 %cmp, label %for.first, label %for.first.exit
+
+for.first.exit: ; preds = %for.first
+ br label %for.second.guard
+
+for.second.guard: ; preds = %for.first.exit, %entry
+ %cmp31 = icmp slt i64 2, 45
+ br i1 %cmp31, label %for.second.entry, label %for.end
+
+for.second.entry: ; preds = %for.second.guard
+ br label %for.second
+
+for.second: ; preds = %for.second.entry, %for.second
+ %i1.02 = phi i64 [ %inc14, %for.second ], [ 2, %for.second.entry ]
+ %sub7 = sub nsw i64 %i1.02, 3
+ %add8 = add nsw i64 %i1.02, 3
+ %mul9 = mul nsw i64 %sub7, %add8
+ %rem10 = srem i64 %mul9, %i1.02
+ %conv11 = trunc i64 %rem10 to i32
+ %arrayidx12 = getelementptr inbounds [1024 x i32], [1024 x i32]* @B, i64 0, i64 %i1.02
+ store i32 %conv11, i32* %arrayidx12, align 4
+ %inc14 = add nsw i64 %i1.02, 1
+ %cmp3 = icmp slt i64 %inc14, 45
+ br i1 %cmp3, label %for.second, label %for.second.exit
+
+for.second.exit: ; preds = %for.second
+ br label %for.end
+
+for.end: ; preds = %for.second.exit, %for.second.guard
+ ret void
+}
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_unsafeblock_peel.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_unsafeblock_peel.ll
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c7b8996aaf4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/guarded_unsafeblock_peel.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+; RUN: opt -S -loop-fusion -loop-fusion-peel-max-count=3 < %s | FileCheck %s
+
+; Tests that we do not fuse two guarded loops together.
+; These loops do not have the same trip count, and the first loop meets the
+; requirements for peeling. However, the exit block of the first loop makes the
+; loops unsafe to fuse together.
+; The expected output of this test is the function as below.
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: void @unsafe_exitblock(i32* noalias %A, i32* noalias %B)
+; CHECK: for.first.guard
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp3, label %for.first.preheader, label %for.second.guard
+; CHECK: for.first.preheader:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first
+; CHECK: for.first:
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp, label %for.first, label %for.first.exit
+; CHECK: for.first.exit:
+; CHECK-NEXT: call void @bar()
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.second.guard
+; CHECK: for.second.guard:
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp21, label %for.second.preheader, label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.second.preheader:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.second
+; CHECK: for.second:
+; CHECK: br i1 %cmp2, label %for.second, label %for.second.exit
+; CHECK: for.second.exit:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.end:
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret void
+
+define void @unsafe_exitblock(i32* noalias %A, i32* noalias %B) {
+for.first.guard:
+ %cmp3 = icmp slt i64 0, 45
+ br i1 %cmp3, label %for.first.preheader, label %for.second.guard
+
+for.first.preheader: ; preds = %for.first.guard
+ br label %for.first
+
+for.first: ; preds = %for.first.preheader, %for.first
+ %i.04 = phi i64 [ %inc, %for.first ], [ 0, %for.first.preheader ]
+ %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %A, i64 %i.04
+ store i32 0, i32* %arrayidx, align 4
+ %inc = add nsw i64 %i.04, 1
+ %cmp = icmp slt i64 %inc, 45
+ br i1 %cmp, label %for.first, label %for.first.exit
+
+for.first.exit: ; preds = %for.first
+ call void @bar()
+ br label %for.second.guard
+
+for.second.guard: ; preds = %for.first.exit, %for.first.guard
+ %cmp21 = icmp slt i64 2,45
+ br i1 %cmp21, label %for.second.preheader, label %for.end
+
+for.second.preheader: ; preds = %for.second.guard
+ br label %for.second
+
+for.second: ; preds = %for.second.preheader, %for.second
+ %j.02 = phi i64 [ %inc6, %for.second ], [ 2, %for.second.preheader ]
+ %arrayidx4 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %B, i64 %j.02
+ store i32 0, i32* %arrayidx4, align 4
+ %inc6 = add nsw i64 %j.02, 1
+ %cmp2 = icmp slt i64 %inc6, 45
+ br i1 %cmp2, label %for.second, label %for.second.exit
+
+for.second.exit: ; preds = %for.second
+ br label %for.end
+
+for.end: ; preds = %for.second.exit, %for.second.guard
+ ret void
+}
+
+declare void @bar()
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/nonadjacent_peel.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/nonadjacent_peel.ll
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d5256c31c8b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/nonadjacent_peel.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+; RUN: opt -S -loop-fusion -loop-fusion-peel-max-count=3 < %s | FileCheck %s
+
+; Tests that we do not fuse these two loops together. These loops do not have
+; the same tripcount, and the first loop is valid candiate for peeling; however
+; the loops are not adjacent, hence they are not valid to be fused (after
+; peeling).
+; The expected output of this test is the function below.
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: void @function(i32* noalias %arg)
+; CHECK-NEXT: for.first.preheader:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first
+; CHECK: for.first:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.latch
+; CHECK: for.first.latch:
+; CHECK: br i1 %exitcond4, label %for.first, label %for.first.exit
+; CHECK: for.first.exit:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.next
+; CHECK: for.next:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.second.preheader
+; CHECK: for.second.preheader:
+; CHECK: br label %for.second
+; CHECK: for.second:
+; CHECK: br label %for.second.latch
+; CHECK: for.second.latch:
+; CHECK: br i1 %exitcond, label %for.second, label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.end:
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret void
+
+ at B = common global [1024 x i32] zeroinitializer, align 16
+
+define void @function(i32* noalias %arg) {
+for.first.preheader:
+ br label %for.first
+
+for.first: ; preds = %for.first.preheader, %for.first.latch
+ %.014 = phi i32 [ 0, %for.first.preheader ], [ %tmp15, %for.first.latch ]
+ %indvars.iv23 = phi i64 [ 0, %for.first.preheader ], [ %indvars.iv.next3, %for.first.latch ]
+ %tmp = add nsw i32 %.014, -3
+ %tmp8 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv23, 3
+ %tmp9 = trunc i64 %tmp8 to i32
+ %tmp10 = mul nsw i32 %tmp, %tmp9
+ %tmp11 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv23 to i32
+ %tmp12 = srem i32 %tmp10, %tmp11
+ %tmp13 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg, i64 %indvars.iv23
+ store i32 %tmp12, i32* %tmp13, align 4
+ br label %for.first.latch
+
+for.first.latch: ; preds = %for.first
+ %indvars.iv.next3 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv23, 1
+ %tmp15 = add nuw nsw i32 %.014, 1
+ %exitcond4 = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next3, 100
+ br i1 %exitcond4, label %for.first, label %for.first.exit
+
+for.first.exit: ; preds: %for.first.latch
+ br label %for.next
+
+for.next: ; preds = %for.first.exit
+ br label %for.second.preheader
+
+for.second.preheader: ; preds = %for.next
+ br label %for.second
+
+for.second: ; preds = %for.second.preheader, %for.second.latch
+ %.02 = phi i32 [ 0, %for.second.preheader ], [ %tmp28, %for.second.latch ]
+ %indvars.iv1 = phi i64 [ 3, %for.second.preheader ], [ %indvars.iv.next, %for.second.latch ]
+ %tmp20 = add nsw i32 %.02, -3
+ %tmp21 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv1, 3
+ %tmp22 = trunc i64 %tmp21 to i32
+ %tmp23 = mul nsw i32 %tmp20, %tmp22
+ %tmp24 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv1 to i32
+ %tmp25 = srem i32 %tmp23, %tmp24
+ %tmp26 = getelementptr inbounds [1024 x i32], [1024 x i32]* @B, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv1
+ store i32 %tmp25, i32* %tmp26, align 4
+ br label %for.second.latch
+
+for.second.latch: ; preds = %for.second
+ %indvars.iv.next = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv1, 1
+ %tmp28 = add nuw nsw i32 %.02, 1
+ %exitcond = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next, 100
+ br i1 %exitcond, label %for.second, label %for.end
+
+for.end: ; preds = %for.second.latch
+ ret void
+}
diff --git a/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/peel.ll b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/peel.ll
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6044df91ef0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/Transforms/LoopFusion/peel.ll
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+; RUN: opt -S -loop-fusion -loop-fusion-peel-max-count=3 < %s | FileCheck %s
+
+; Tests whether we can fuse two loops together if they have constant but a
+;
diff erent tripcount.
+; The first three iterations of the first loop should be peeled, and then the
+; two loops should be fused together in this example.
+
+; C Code
+;
+; int B[1024];
+;
+; void function(int *arg) {
+; for (int i = 0; i != 100; ++i)
+; arg[i] = ((i - 3)*(i+3)) % i;
+;
+; for (int i = 3; i != 100; ++i)
+; B[i] = ((i-6)*(i+3)) % i;
+; }
+
+; CHECK-LABEL: void @function(i32* noalias %arg)
+; CHECK-NEXT: for.first.preheader:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel.begin
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.begin:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel
+; CHECK: for.first.peel:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.latch.peel
+; CHECK: for.first.latch.peel:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.peel.next
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel2
+; CHECK: for.first.peel2:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.latch.peel10
+; CHECK: for.first.latch.peel10:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.peel.next1
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next1:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel15
+; CHECK: for.first.peel15:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.latch.peel23
+; CHECK: for.first.latch.peel23:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.peel.next14
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next14:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.peel.next27
+; CHECK: for.first.peel.next27:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first.preheader.peel.newph
+; CHECK: for.first.preheader.peel.newph:
+; CHECK-NEXT: br label %for.first
+; CHECK: for.first:
+; CHECK: br label %for.first.latch
+; CHECK: for.first.latch:
+; CHECK: br label %for.second.latch
+; CHECK: for.second.latch:
+; CHECK: br i1 %exitcond, label %for.first, label %for.end
+; CHECK: for.end:
+; CHECK-NEXT: ret void
+
+ at B = common global [1024 x i32] zeroinitializer, align 16
+
+define void @function(i32* noalias %arg) {
+for.first.preheader:
+ br label %for.first
+
+for.first: ; preds = %for.first.preheader, %for.first.latch
+ %.014 = phi i32 [ 0, %for.first.preheader ], [ %tmp15, %for.first.latch ]
+ %indvars.iv23 = phi i64 [ 0, %for.first.preheader ], [ %indvars.iv.next3, %for.first.latch ]
+ %tmp = add nsw i32 %.014, -3
+ %tmp8 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv23, 3
+ %tmp9 = trunc i64 %tmp8 to i32
+ %tmp10 = mul nsw i32 %tmp, %tmp9
+ %tmp11 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv23 to i32
+ %tmp12 = srem i32 %tmp10, %tmp11
+ %tmp13 = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arg, i64 %indvars.iv23
+ store i32 %tmp12, i32* %tmp13, align 4
+ br label %for.first.latch
+
+for.first.latch: ; preds = %for.first
+ %indvars.iv.next3 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv23, 1
+ %tmp15 = add nuw nsw i32 %.014, 1
+ %exitcond4 = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next3, 100
+ br i1 %exitcond4, label %for.first, label %for.second.preheader
+
+for.second.preheader: ; preds = %for.first.latch
+ br label %for.second
+
+for.second: ; preds = %for.second.preheader, %for.second.latch
+ %.02 = phi i32 [ 0, %for.second.preheader ], [ %tmp28, %for.second.latch ]
+ %indvars.iv1 = phi i64 [ 3, %for.second.preheader ], [ %indvars.iv.next, %for.second.latch ]
+ %tmp20 = add nsw i32 %.02, -3
+ %tmp21 = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv1, 3
+ %tmp22 = trunc i64 %tmp21 to i32
+ %tmp23 = mul nsw i32 %tmp20, %tmp22
+ %tmp24 = trunc i64 %indvars.iv1 to i32
+ %tmp25 = srem i32 %tmp23, %tmp24
+ %tmp26 = getelementptr inbounds [1024 x i32], [1024 x i32]* @B, i64 0, i64 %indvars.iv1
+ store i32 %tmp25, i32* %tmp26, align 4
+ br label %for.second.latch
+
+for.second.latch: ; preds = %for.second
+ %indvars.iv.next = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv1, 1
+ %tmp28 = add nuw nsw i32 %.02, 1
+ %exitcond = icmp ne i64 %indvars.iv.next, 100
+ br i1 %exitcond, label %for.second, label %for.end
+
+for.end: ; preds = %for.second.latch
+ ret void
+}
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list