[llvm-dev] Late setting of SCEV NoWrap flags does bad with cache

[Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com> wrote:
> I don't really believe that option 2 may work just because even if we recalculate the range for this add recurrency, there are already its derivatives with cached ranges (the most obvious example is sext and expressions where this sext is involved). We can speculate about what is "simple enough" to not cache the ranges, but I believe that there is always a counter-example to any definition. It's just maybe hard to construct.
>
> Just a bit of speculation about option 3 (not sure how often this case is): we can have dependency between SCEVs which is not represented in use-list. For example:
>
>   if ({100,+,1} > -1) {
>     x = a / {1,+,1}
>   }
>
> If we prove nsw for the first addrec, it will also imply nsw for the second addrec (because the number of iterations in this loop is provably less than MAX_INT - 99). But there is no clear use-chain dependency between them. So I would rather belive in option 1 as in the most reliable.

That's true, but that's also not the problem that this thread intends to solve.

I think option 1 is fine, but (3) has greater applicability.  For
instance, if we had (3) we would be able to get rid of annoying stuff
like https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/807062f0a15470a029046910f4618f9627ca5c03/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp#L3701

-- Sanjoy

>
> I'll try to experiment with options 1 and 3 and see where it gets us.
>
> Best regards,
> Max
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 12:04 PM
> To: Maxim Kazantsev <max.kazantsev at azul.com>
> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Late setting of SCEV NoWrap flags does bad with cache
>
> Hi Max,
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Maxim Kazantsev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I want to raise a discussion about reasonability of late setting of
>> nsw/nuw/nw flags to SCEV AddRecs through setNoWrapFlags method. A
>> discussion about this have already happened in August last year, there
>> was a concern about different no-wrap flags that come from different
>> sequences of SCEV flags invocations. It was mentioned there that late
>> setting of flags is actually a hack to save some compile time.
>>
>> Recently I've stumbled over a different problem related to this late
>> flag setting. The problem is that current SCEV implementation caches a
>> lot of data about SCEVs. In particular, information about ranges and
>> loop backedge taken counts. A side effect of that is that if we had an
>> AddRec like {1,+,1} and cached its range as [MIN_INT, MAX_INT+1), and
>> then later found out that this recurrency provably has <nsw>, its
>> cached range doesn't get updated. As well as ranges of all other SCEVs
>> that depend on that. As result, we have a very weird behavior of SCEV
>> that is unable to prove that sext({1,+,1}<nsw>) is a positive value just because it has outdated cached ranges.
>
> Yes, this problem has come up several times and it is counter-intuitive.
>
> Part of the problem is (I'm guessing, I wasn't there when SCEV was
> written) that SCEV is tuned for C/C++ and for C/C++ add recurrences are almost always nsw on construction so you don't have these, let's say "phase ordering", issues.
>
> However, for Java, I was under the impression that despite this caching issue we are fairly effective at proving ranges.  Of course "fairly effective" does not help if the one thing we don't optimize is 90% of an Important Benchmark(TM).
>
> I see a couple of ways out of this:
>
>   1. Eagerly compute nsw/nuw on AddRec construction.  I'd be happy with this if you can show that we don't regress compile time.  Other than the test-suite, you can probably ask for interesting compile time benchmarks on this list.
>
>   2. Don't cache ranges so much.  Especially for things like sext({1,+,1}), just recomputing the ranges may not be significantly worse than the densemap lookup, assuming the backedge taken count is already computed.  Of course for complex SCEVs we should still cache ranges, but for those perhaps we're okay with "locking in" a more conservative result.  We could even return conservatives result for recursion deeper than a certain depth, like we do for Values in ComputeKnownBits. I like this philosophically since it reduces caching (a lot of the complexity in SCEV is due to caching), but again, you'll have to show that we don't regress compile time.
>
>   3. Precise invalidation via use-lists -- add use lists to SCEV and use that to precisely kick values out of caches as you infer NSW/NUW etc.  We can optimize the representation of use lists by e.g. avoiding keeping use lists for SCEVConstants and exploiting the fact that we don't delete SCEVs so use lists don't need fast deletion.  Again, you'll need to show compile time memory usage does not go up by very much.
>
>> You may find the example of such behavior if you re-enable the
>> assertion from patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL323309 . The test that
>> was added with
>
> For that case specifically:  I don't think such asserts are a good idea, unless you've already checked SE.isKnownNonNegative(X) (i.e. not only do you know that X is "supposed to be" non-negative, but you also know that SCEV can prove it).  For instance see
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25170 where SCEV can prove "A-B"
> is a constant but can't prove that "B-A" is a constant.  I think this behavior is fine btw, SCEV is allowed to be arbitrarily conservative.
>
>> My question is: do we still want to have this hack with late setting
>> of nsw/nuw given that this flag does not give us any benefits in many
>> real situations? What would you think?
>
> We can't just remove it (because you'll regress the cases where it does help), but we can replace it with something that is more effective.
>
> -- Sanjoy