Skip to content

Conversation

@andcarminati
Copy link
Collaborator

@andcarminati andcarminati commented Oct 21, 2025

This work is intended to avoid 2D/3D (when possible) register spills.

The idea and rationale behind this work is in a previous Draft PR: #442.

To review, I recommend to follow this PR commit by commit.

Credits also for the co-author @krishnamtibrewala.

@andcarminati
Copy link
Collaborator Author

andcarminati commented Oct 21, 2025

QoR results:

Core_Insn_Count Core_StackSize_absolute Core_PMSize_absolute

@krishnamtibrewala
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks you @andcarminati, very much !!

@krishnamtibrewala
Copy link
Collaborator

Also do you think following commit will help ?
a681b6e

@andcarminati
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Also do you think following commit will help ? a681b6e

Maybe yes! As mentioned before, I prefer to keep just the minimal necessary changes. We can test after, on top of this PR.

@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch from 31b7e71 to a27561f Compare October 22, 2025 08:35
@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch from a27561f to e124649 Compare October 31, 2025 14:07
@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch 3 times, most recently from 80e6f7c to 4c47705 Compare October 31, 2025 14:36
MI.eraseFromParent();
// As we don't handle all registers now (selective LI filter),
// We should make sure that all LiveIntervals are correct.
// If we dont't repair, MI will compose the LIs of some registers,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: don't

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you mean with compose? the dead MI will block some LI ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@andcarminati andcarminati Nov 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A dead MI will have an invalid SlotIndex that will appear in some instruction`s LI, what is wrong. The original copy should not appear in any LI.

}
Register SrcReg = RegOp.getParent()->getOperand(1).getReg();
if (!VisitedVRegs.count(SrcReg) &&
getRewritableSubRegs(SrcReg, MRI, TRI, VisitedVRegs).empty()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it ever happen, that SrcReg has no SubRegs, but DstReg has them or vis versa?
Can they also have different SubRegs?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This part was a refactor, but as we are handling a full copy here, we can expect subregs on both sides.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As a full copy, I mean a 2d to 2d copy or a 3d to 3d copy.

@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch 2 times, most recently from a88a541 to ab8c08d Compare November 7, 2025 13:02

MachineInstr *FirstMI = nullptr;
SmallSet<Register, 8> RegistersToRepair;
bool IsFirstCopy = true;
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: We can use FirstMI as a replacement for IsFirstCopy.

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
//===----- AIEUnallocatedSuperRegRewriter.cpp - Constrain tied sub-registers
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fix this.

# RUN: llc -O2 -mtriple=aie2p -start-before=greedy \
# RUN: -stop-before=aie-unallocated-superreg-rewrite %s -o - | FileCheck %s

# The goal of this test is to check if we properly insert undef flag on the def side
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@andcarminati andcarminati Nov 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I could extend the verifier to cover partial definitions. It is far away from be trivial, but it could be done.

static bool isRegUsedBy2DOr3DInstruction(const MachineRegisterInfo &MRI,
const Register &R) {

return std::any_of(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

llvm::any_of on the range?


for (MachineInstr &MI : MRI.def_instructions(VReg)) {

if (!MI.isBundledWithPred() || MI.isBundledWithSucc())
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can I have a comment explaining this directional asymmetry?

@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch 4 times, most recently from 731a410 to eeedaa7 Compare November 11, 2025 14:24
@andcarminati
Copy link
Collaborator Author

There is no failures across all benchmarks.

andcarminati and others added 9 commits November 13, 2025 03:57
Now we filter by register class and usage. Basically, we exclude here
instructions like copies and non-2D/3D ones.

Co-Authored-By: Krishnam Tibrewala <[email protected]>
The goal of this test is to check if we properly insert undef flag on the def side
of a expanded full copy.  On a sub-register def operand, it refers to the part of the
register that isn't written. A sub-register def implicitly reads the other parts of the
register being redefined unless the <undef> flag is set, and a missing flag can
force the related register to be inserted in liveout set of the predecessors block,
causing dominance problems.

Co-Authored-By: Krishnam Tibrewala <[email protected]>
This will handle properly use of non-dominating definitions. We also
change the handling of the destination registers in two parts:

*Copy expansion: we replace the ogininal index by the index of the first
lane copy to avoid the creation LRs with just one instruction, in this
way we keep que LI correct.

*Rewrite: reset dead flags if necessary.

Co-Authored-By: Krishnam Tibrewala <[email protected]>
If we don't need a full register, we can expand to individual lanes.

Co-Authored-By: Krishnam Tibrewala <[email protected]>
This avoids cycles in bundles that appear in VirtRegRewriter.
We also update LIs related to src and dst operands of those
expanded copies.

Co-Authored-By: Krishnam Tibrewala <[email protected]>
@andcarminati andcarminati force-pushed the andreu.extend.2d3d.allocation branch from eeedaa7 to 925f9d9 Compare November 13, 2025 11:07

MachineInstr *PartCopy = BuildMI(*MI.getParent(), MI, MI.getDebugLoc(),
TII.get(TargetOpcode::COPY))
.addReg(DstReg, RegState::Define, SubRegIdx)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: we do not need undefs here because we fully define the subregisters that we copy to?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, we start the definition on the first copy, and we consider that next copies will read the previous one. In practice, inserting undefs in all copies will not hurt in general, but as is, we have a more accurate model for incremental definitions.


// Only set undefined on the first partial copy. The first copy doesn't read
// other lanes, but subsequent copies do read the previously written lanes.
// Setting undefined on all copies breaks live interval tracking and causes
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oh yeah i also found that out with subreg spilling XD


// Replace the original copy by the first one, so we automatically repair
// DstReg's LI.
LIS.ReplaceMachineInstrInMaps(MI, *FirstMI);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why aren't we inserting all the newly created machineinstructions into LIS?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because, later on, each new lane copy will make dead the previous one if we try to fix the LI. In this case, we say that the LR will start on the first copy and then it will simply continue though the next ones, until the next last use. I this way we prevent false dead flags everywhere.

}

/// Rewrite a full copy into multiple copies using the subregs in \p CopySubRegs
void rewriteFullCopy(MachineInstr &MI, const std::set<int> &CopySubRegs,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

MI is a copy, right? Could you rename MI to CopyMI, so it becomes clearer?

for (MachineInstr &MI : make_early_inc_range(MRI.reg_instructions(Reg))) {
if (MI.isFullCopy())
AIESuperRegUtils::rewriteFullCopy(
MI, TRI.getSubRegSplit(MRI.getRegClass(Reg)->getID()), LIS, *TII, TRI,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you are also passing TRI, I think you don't need to pass CopySubRegs here

You can get MRI like this:
MachineRegisterInfo &MRI = MI.getMF()->getRegInfo();

VisitedVRegs.insert(Reg);
SmallSet<int, 8> UsedSubRegs;
for (MachineOperand &RegOp : MRI.reg_operands(Reg)) {
int SubReg = RegOp.getSubReg();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: const

SmallSet<int, 8> UsedSubRegs;
for (MachineOperand &RegOp : MRI.reg_operands(Reg)) {
int SubReg = RegOp.getSubReg();
if (SubReg && SubRegSplit.count(SubReg)) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we are a subreg, shouldn't we automatically be in the SubRegSplit?
I think we can assert it instead of checking it in the condition.


VisitedVRegs.insert(Reg);
SmallSet<int, 8> UsedSubRegs;
for (MachineOperand &RegOp : MRI.reg_operands(Reg)) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe add a comment that we are walking all defs and uses to find subreg uses and full copies.

int SubReg = RegOp.getSubReg();
if (SubReg && SubRegSplit.count(SubReg)) {
UsedSubRegs.insert(SubReg);
} else if (RegOp.getParent()->isFullCopy()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why are we performing this check on uses?
Isn't this a check we can perform once on the DefI?

}
UsedSubRegs.insert(SubRegSplit.begin(), SubRegSplit.end());
} else {
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << " Cannot rewrite " << RegOp << " in "
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this a regular use/Def of the full register?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants