[llvm-dev] RFC: [LV] any objections in moving isLegalMasked* check from Legal to CostModel? (Cleaning up LoopVectorizationLegality)

Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jan 5 13:01:04 PST 2018


I'm trying to refactor LoopVectorize such that it has better conformance to VPlan vision going forward
(http://www.llvm.org/docs/Proposals/VectorizationPlan.html). All VP*Recipe class definitions are now
moved to VPlan.h, and I have a patch under review to move LoopVectorizationPlanner class out of
LoopVectorize.cpp (https://reviews.llvm.org/D41420).

Next thing I'm working on is LoopVectorizationLegality, and I noticed that it has a component of
CostModel and optimization, which doesn't seem right from vectorizer's architectural perspective.
It appears that we are currently abusing Legal as the attic to throw a lot of things in order to avoid passing
many pointers around. From vectorizer's architectural point of view, we should distinguish Legal from
"Vectorization Context Information" (I'd call it LoopVectorizationAnalysisInfo), some of which (such as
induction, reduction, etc.) are populated during the Legal step. InterleaveInfo shouldn't even be
a member of Legal. Nothing to do with Legality. It would be a good member of LoopVectorizationAnalysisInfo.
Eventually, I'd like to see these under Analysis subtree (instead of Transform), since they are indeed Analysis.

As a first step of this LoopVectorizationLegality cleanup, I propose to move the following checks
(and member functions) to LoopVectorizationCostModel.
My assumption is that all SIMD architectures should support serialization of those operations
at some cost  (e.g., lowering in CG prepare) and thus failing to vectorize due to "false" return values
of those calls is incorrect behavior. I'll make sure to use a very high initial cost such that this cleanup is
NFC for all practical purposes ---- and leave the tuning work as TODO.

The down side I can think of is that this will end up running more parts of vectorizer for those kind
of loops ---- can expose pre-existing bugs and compile time would be a bit longer since we are bailing
out later. Upside is that we can tune the cost model ---- if other parts of the loop has enough 
speedup, we don't have to give up entire vectorization simply because masked load/store/gather/scatter
aren't supported on the target.

If anyone still thinks "early bailout" is valuable, splitting into a separate HWLegal class would be
a cleaner approach than what we have today. We should be able to disable/enable it under an option.

Let me know what you think.

Hideki Saito

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list