[llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

Tue Aug 20 08:47:55 PDT 2019

Thanks!

>From a quick glance it looks like it tries to replace instruction operands case-by-case instead of identifying loop invariant exit values (created by IndVars) and replacing all their uses with the value from the loop, similarly to how it was done in the other attempt at this. I don't know how these approaches compare in practice. Anyway, thanks for coming up with this. I've left some comments in the review.

--
Danila

From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 02:02
To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

I did a fresh implementation of the idea, having deliberately not looked at the previous patch much.  I only took it as far as a POC, but you're welcome to take it the rest of the way if you want.  https://reviews.llvm.org/D66450<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D66450&d=DwMD-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=VEV8gWVf26SDOqiMtTxnBloZmItAauQlSqznsCc0KxY&m=DCWIWu4rRpEUko__i4_Ly7JXUJqZGq1FucDk0GVGRfg&s=86kYvGzNWzVteLDoAI9UPnzTPVkLy-JUxIyXwpzIXTM&e=>

I may find some time to keep playing with this, or I may not.

Philip

On 8/16/19 9:36 AM, Philip Reames wrote:

I'd be happy to review a patch, but you need to make sure you have buy in from the original patch author.  I'm not entirely sure of the licensing implications of you submitting someone elses code, so it's best to avoid the discussion if we can.  (If anyone can give a conclusive answer here, please chime in.)

Philip
On 8/16/19 6:44 AM, Danila Malyutin wrote:
Thanks. I've rebased this patch on top of the recent LLVM (it was straightforward) and applied it in my fork.
It seems to have solved one of the problems I was having. Would LLVM be interested if I submit the updated version for the review?

--
Danila

From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 19:01
To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com><mailto:Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov><mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

Wasn't aware of this patch.  No, I don't see an obvious reason why it wasn't followed up on.

Philip
On 8/13/19 8:25 AM, Danila Malyutin wrote:
I've noticed that there was an attempt to mitigate ExitValues problem in https://reviews.llvm.org/D12494<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D12494&d=DwMD-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=VEV8gWVf26SDOqiMtTxnBloZmItAauQlSqznsCc0KxY&m=dG9EWNnpejxa8ub7_ajgnN50pG20wvSyA7WI9jWEv2Q&s=XRJmqJsGpSvBiRcYTKFYc_m94KMv3dQ6FFLsfF7GR1Y&e=> that went nowhere. Were there particular issues with that approach?

--
Danila

From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 02:05
To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com><mailto:Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>; Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov><mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

On 8/9/19 8:27 AM, Danila Malyutin via llvm-dev wrote:
Hi Hal,

I see. So LSR could theoretically counteract undesirable Ind Var transformations but it's not implemented at the moment?

I think I've managed to come up with a small reproducer that can also exhibit similar problem on x86, here it is: https://godbolt.org/z/_wxzut<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__godbolt.org_z_-5Fwxzut&d=DwMD-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=VEV8gWVf26SDOqiMtTxnBloZmItAauQlSqznsCc0KxY&m=xzJTtah1fNUz56fRe1yh10OCSBFg7IbzUhFcn8BPyJk&s=-qhi7IRwOrqjcv_cxlhP6lbVWspNKWeDT4amCIHR1sU&e=>

As you can see, when rewriteLoopExitValues is not disabled Clang generates worse code due to additional spills, because Ind Vars rewrites all exit values of 'a' to recompute it's value instead of reusing the value from the loop body. This requires extra registers for the new "a after the loop" value (since it's not simply reused) and also to store the new "offset", which leads to the extra spills since they all live across big loop body. When exit values are not rewritten 'a' stays in it's `r15d` register with no extra costs.

This hits on a point I've thought some about, but haven't tried to implement.

I think there might be room for a late pass which undoes the exit value rewriting.  As an analogy, we have MachineLICM which sometimes undoes the transforms performed by LICM, but we still want the IR form to hoist aggressively for ease of optimization and analysis.

Maybe this should be part of LSR, or maybe separate.  Haven't thought about that part extensively.

It's worth noting that the SCEVs for the exit value of the value inside the loop and the rewritten exit value should be identical.  So recognizing the case for potential rewriting is quite straight-forward.  The profitability reasoning might be more involved, but the legality part should essentially be handled by SCEV, and should be able to reuse exactly the same code as RLEV.

--
Danila

From: Finkel, Hal J. [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 21:24
To: Danila Malyutin <Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com><mailto:Danila.Malyutin at synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

Hi, Danila,

Regarding the first case, this is certainly a problem that has come up before. As I recall, and I believe this is still true, LoopStrengthReduce, where we reason about induction variables while accounting for register pressure, won't currently add new PHIs. People have talked about extending LSR to consider adding new PHIs in the past.

Regarding the second case, could you post a more-detailed description? I don't quite understand the issue.

 -Hal

Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

________________________________
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Danila Malyutin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:36 PM
To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
Subject: [llvm-dev] How to best deal with undesirable Induction Variable Simplification?

Hello,
Recently I've come across two instances where Induction Variable Simplification lead to noticable performance regressions.

In one case, the removal of extra IV lead to the inability to reschedule instructions in a tight loop to reduce stalls. In that case, there were enough registers to spare, so using extra register for extra induction variable was preferable since it reduced dependencies in the loop.
In the second case, there was a big nested loop made even bigger after unswitching. However, the inner loop body was rather simple, of the form:

loop {

  p+=n;

...

  p+=n;

...

}
use p.

Due to unswitching there were several such loops each with the different number of p+=n ops, so when the IndVars pass rewrote all exit values, it added a lot of slightly different offsets to the main loop header that couldn't fit in the available registers which lead to unnecessary spills/reloads.

I am wondering what is the usual strategy for dealing with such "pessimizations"? Is it possible to somehow modify the IndVarSimplify pass to take those issues into account (for example, tell it that adding offset computation + gep is potentially more expensive than simply reusing last var from the loop) or should it be recovered in some later pass? If so, is there an easy way to revert IV elimination? Have anyone dealt with similar issues before?

--

Danila

_______________________________________________

LLVM Developers mailing list

llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwMD-g&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=VEV8gWVf26SDOqiMtTxnBloZmItAauQlSqznsCc0KxY&m=xzJTtah1fNUz56fRe1yh10OCSBFg7IbzUhFcn8BPyJk&s=yx8qR1CqElqmkWtFEZai6IE4tZr66rXpt7QYSVvsv6Q&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190820/3e5e0498/attachment-0001.html>