[llvm-dev] [RFC][InlineCost] Modeling JumpThreading (or similar) in inline cost model

Chad Rosier via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Aug 4 08:56:56 PDT 2017


I'm working on an improvement to the inline cost model, but I'm unsure 
how to proceed.  Let me begin by first describing the problem I'm trying 
to solve.  Consider the following pseudo C code:

*typedef struct element {
   unsigned idx;
} element_t;

*static inline
unsigned char fn2 (element_t *dst_ptr, const element_t *a_ptr,
                    const element_t *b_ptr, unsigned char changed) {
   if (a_ptr && b_ptr && a_ptr->idx == b_ptr->idx) {
     if (!changed && dst_ptr && dst_ptr->idx == a_ptr->idx) {
       /* Do something */
     } else {
       changed = 1;
       if (!dst_ptr)
         dst_ptr = fn3();
         dst_ptr->idx = a_ptr->idx;
       /* Do something. */
   } else {
     changed = fn4();
   return changed;

unsigned char fn1 (element_t *a_ptr, element_t *b_ptr) {
   unsigned char changed = 0;
   while (b_ptr) {
     if (!a_ptr || a_ptr->idx == b_ptr->idx) {
       changed = fn2 (a_ptr, a_ptr, b_ptr, changed);
       b_ptr = b_ptr->next;
   return changed;

When the inline cost model computes the inline cost of fn2 it ends up 
being much higher than the inline threshold.  A fair amount of the cost 
is due to the inlining of fn3 into fn2. However, if fn2 had been inlined 
into fn1 the code from fn3 would have been removed as dead/unreachable.

At the fn2 call site notice the first two arguments are equal.  Thus, in 
the context of fn2 dst_ptr and a_ptr are equal.  The call site of fn3 is 
predicated on dst_ptr being null (i.e., if (!dst_ptr) dst_ptr = fn3()), 
but that code is predicated on a_ptr being non-null.  Therefore, we know 
the condition !dst_ptr is false (because a_ptr == dst_ptr and a_ptr is 
non-null) and the call to fn3 is dead.  I suspect one of JumpThreading, 
EarlyCSE, or GVN does the elimination after inlining, so that's what I'd 
like to try and model in the inline cost model.  (Note fn2 has multiple 
call sides and the property that the first and second arguments are 
equal isn't true for each call site, so something like IPSCCP doesn't 
actually help, AFAICT).

My first attempt at solving this problem did something similar to what 
is done in JumpThreadingPass::ProcessImpliedCondition().  Specifically, 
it tried to prove that dst_ptr was non-null based on a dominating 
condition.  The only tricky parts were to deal with hammocks/diamonds 
when walking up the CFG (See: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36287 as a 
concrete example of how I proposed to get an immediate dominator without 
the domtree) and to account for the fact that dst_ptr and a_ptr are equal.

I'm pretty sure I can get this approach to work, however, I'm not 
convinced it's really extensible or general.  Should we consider using 
the full dominator tree in the inline cost model to capture this?

If you have any thoughts on how to tackle the problem, I would love to 
hear your feedback!


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170804/6e305680/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list