[llvm-dev] Hardware loop and SpeculateAroundPHIs pass

Thomas Preud'homme via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jun 4 02:30:31 PDT 2021

Swell, thanks Sjoerd!
From: Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com>
Sent: 04 June 2021 10:19
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>; Thomas Preud'homme <thomasp at graphcore.ai>
Subject: Re: Hardware loop and SpeculateAroundPHIs pass

FWIW, looks related to https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48821.
From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Thomas Preud'homme via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: 04 June 2021 10:06
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
Subject: [llvm-dev] Hardware loop and SpeculateAroundPHIs pass


We've experienced some regression due to SpeculateAroundPHIs on our non-upstream target: code that used hardware loop is now using a regular branch loop. Apologies for only picking this now, we've only started using the new pass manager when we merged in the commit that enabled it by default.

An example of what causes us trouble is:

  unsigned KnownDec(unsigned *arr) {
    unsigned x = 0x2000;
    unsigned z = 0;
    while(x) {
      z += arr[x-1];
    return z;

we get the following IR after the SpeculateAroundPHIs pass:

    %sub.0 = add nsw i32 2000, -1
    br label %while.body

  while.body:                                       ; preds = %while.body.while.body_crit_edge, %entry
    %z.07 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %add, %while.body.while.body_crit_edge ]
    %sub.phi = phi i32 [ %sub.0, %entry ], [ %sub.1, %while.body.while.body_crit_edge ]
    %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds i32, i32* %arr, i32 %sub.phi
    %0 = load i32, i32* %arrayidx, align 4, !tbaa !2
    %add = add i32 %0, %z.07
    %tobool.not = icmp eq i32 %sub.phi, 0
    br i1 %tobool.not, label %while.end, label %while.body.while.body_crit_edge, !llvm.loop !6

  while.body.while.body_crit_edge:                  ; preds = %while.body
    %sub.1 = add nsw i32 %sub.phi, -1
    br label %while.body

  while.end:                                        ; preds = %while.body
    ret i32 %add

The fact that the condition check is separate from the loop latch means we cannot use a hardware loop instruction. Similar code gets generated for PowerPC if using 0x10000 instead of 2000 but (i) they run EarlyCSE after which sink the value down again in the PHI and they have a pass to canonicalize the loop form for their addressing mode which incidentally moves the getelementptr from the critical edge (inserted there by the loop strength reduction pass) back into the main loop body. This feels kinda lucky, after all the EarlyCSE and ppc-loop-instr-form-prep passes were added to the PPC pipeline long before the PHI speculation one.

Is the expectation that targets with hardware loop deal with the result of PHI speculation? If that's the case, could we have a hook for those target to disable the pass when they suspect a hardware loop instruction might be used?

Best regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210604/db3e9f93/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list