[llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing classes for the codegen driven by new pass manager

Eric Christopher via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 13 21:22:48 PDT 2020 

Let's get a burn down list and some directions, I'll try to help :)

-eric

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 9:21 PM Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I looked more closely at some of the remaining check-llvm failures under
> NPM, and quite a few are due to passes that haven't been ported to NPM yet.
> The ones I looked at all share the trait of needing some analysis to
> provide a TargetMachine, which doesn't exist in NPM yet. So actually some
> of your work is required for the optimizer pipeline NPM switch.
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 6:23 PM Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Yuanfang
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks at google.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 12:49 PM
>> > To: Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com>
>> > Cc: LLVM Developers' List <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Introducing classes for the codegen
>> driven by
>> > new pass manager
>> >
>> >       While we're still working towards using NPM for optimizer
>> pipeline by
>> > default, we still don't have a machine pass interface and the
>> corresponding
>> > machine pass manager using NPM. The potential benefits using NPM aside,
>> > this inhibits us from making any progress on deprecating LPM for the
>> > codegen pipeline which blocks removing LPM altogether. The purpose of
>> this
>> > series of patches is to (1) let pass developers write or port machine
>> passes to
>> > a new machine pass interface and be able to test it with `llc`. (2) let
>> a target
>> > have the choice of implementing the codegen pipeline using NPM (Work-in-
>> > Progress). Maybe it is obvious already, but I also want to mention that
>> these
>> > patches do not intend to force a target to migrate to NPM right way.
>> >
>> >
>> > Awesome!
>> >
>> > It would be awesome to delete all the LPM infra at some point in the
>> future.
>> > But even just deleting all the optimizer pipeline LPM infra would be a
>> big win,
>> > and that shouldn't be tied to codegen.
>> >
>>
>> True. Opt and codegen pipeline could make independent progress of NPM
>> migration.
>>
>> >
>> >       * Goal-1 *
>> >       https://reviews.llvm.org/D67687
>> >
>> >       Four member methods of a machine pass are recognized by the
>> > machine pass manager:
>> >       (1) `PreservedAnalyses run(MachineFunction &,
>> > MachineFunctionAnalysisManager &)`. Majority of the machine passes use
>> > this.
>> >       (2) `Error doInitialization(Module &,
>> > MachineFunctionAnalysisManager &)`. Passes like AsmPrinter needs a hook
>> > to lower/transform global constructs. (invoked before all passes `run`
>> > method)
>> >       (3) `Error doFinalization(Module &,
>> > MachineFunctionAnalysisManager &)`. Client: PrintMIRPass.  This is also
>> for
>> > completeness. (invoked after all passes `run` method)
>> >       (4) `Error run(Module &, MachineFunctionAnalysisManager &)`.
>> > Client: MachineOutliner, DebugifyMachineModule. I would call this
>> machine
>> > module pass which needs a global scope. It is like (1) but subject to
>> pass
>> > ordering. Currently, a pass either define this or (1), but not both.
>> >
>> >       (doInitialization/doFinalization is currently not supported by
>> the NPM
>> > optimizer pipeline because there is no real need for it.
>> >       http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-
>> > September/126504.html)
>> >
>> >
>> > Are doInitialization/doFinalization really necessary? As mentioned in
>> the
>> > previous discussion, it seems like usually the things in
>> > doInitialization/doFinalization are not logically in the right place.
>> > For example, maybe PrintMIRPass should just be a module pass, like
>> > PrintModulePass.
>>
>> Good point! It is very likely that PrintMIRPass could be implemented with
>> (4) above.
>> For AsmPrinter's uses of ` doInitialization`, I'm not 100% sure.  It
>> looks like it could also be replaced by (4).
>> But difference is ` doInitialization` is invoked before all passes `run`
>> method, whereas (4) is invoked by pass order.
>> I don't know if there are any implicit/subtle dependency in this regard.
>>
>> It would be great to have some codegen folks to shed light on it here.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >       * Goal-2 *
>> >       https://reviews.llvm.org/D67687
>> >
>> >       Unlike IR where `has-a` relationship exists among
>> > module/function/loop/cgscc etc., the MIR does not have `has-a`
>> relationship
>> > with any kind of IR. It does have a one-on-one relationship with IR
>> function.
>> > So, transforming MIR does not change any IR unit at all. Invalidating a
>> MIR
>> > analysis result also does not invalidate any IR analysis result.
>> >
>> >
>> >       Based on the above observation, the machine pass manager runs
>> > standalone, i.e. combining it with other types of pass managers using
>> adaptor
>> > passes are not supported. There is also no proxy defined for machine
>> > analysis manager with any other types of analysis managers. The machine
>> > analysis manager does provide API to register and query IR analysis
>> because
>> > machine passes need IR analysis result in general.
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe this is my lack of familiarity with codegen, but why doesn't a
>> Module
>> > contain all its MachineFunctions? It seems like that adaptor would be
>> > necessary.
>>
>> Because their data structures are separated. Logically they are
>> representations of the same/similar thing
>> at different abstraction level.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >       ** Testing **
>> >       - Since the `llc` options are compatible, as passes are ported to
>> NPM
>> > and various issues got resolved, we should see more tests passing when
>> `llc -
>> > enable-new-pm` is turned on implicitly via an (maybe) knob similar to
>> `cmake
>> > -DENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_NEW_PASS_MANAGER`.
>> >       - A buildbot to make sure no regression when `llc -enable-new-pm`
>> is
>> > implicitly on?
>> >       - Any idea on this regard is much appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>> > Manually running tests once in a while might be good enough, not sure
>> if the
>> > cost of setting up a bot that maintains some sort of list of tests that
>> have
>> > passed in the past is worth it. From my limited experience, tests won't
>> really
>> > tend to regress under NPM as long as you have some tests explicitly
>> testing
>> > NPM sprinkled around.
>>
>> Sounds good. I was afraid if it takes too long to migration codegen
>> passes, there may be regressions introduced
>> into IR-to-obj tests under NPM (they exercise mush more than a single or
>> a few consecutive passes). I think it's fine to consider this in the future.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200713/0e6b02d2/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list