-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[VPlan] Add exit phi operands during initial construction (NFC). #136455
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from 5 commits
e931309
a854ca7
7052337
26d7348
d0081f7
ea95862
a900c63
5c37c32
412b278
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -9368,8 +9368,7 @@ static void addScalarResumePhis(VPRecipeBuilder &Builder, VPlan &Plan, | |
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Collect VPIRInstructions for phis in the exit blocks that are modeled | ||
| // in VPlan and add the exiting VPValue as operand. | ||
| // Collect VPIRInstructions for phis in the exit block from the latch only. | ||
| static SetVector<VPIRInstruction *> | ||
| collectUsersInExitBlocks(Loop *OrigLoop, VPRecipeBuilder &Builder, | ||
| VPlan &Plan) { | ||
|
|
@@ -9388,11 +9387,8 @@ collectUsersInExitBlocks(Loop *OrigLoop, VPRecipeBuilder &Builder, | |
| continue; | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Independent: can R iterate over ExitVPBB->phis() above?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Updated in 8c83355, thanks
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Independent: is this early continue needed: given that unreachable exit blocks have been emptied of their all their recipes - including phi ones?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Removed in e268f71, thanks
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Independent: loop-unswitch this condition rather than check it for all phi's?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Will do, thanks |
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Above "and add the exiting VPValue as operand" is now obsolete. Worth noting that users of multiple (early) exits are excluded?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done, aslo dropped .. modeled in VPlan, as all are now modeled in VPlan. |
||
| PHINode &ExitPhi = ExitIRI->getIRPhi(); | ||
| BasicBlock *ExitingBB = OrigLoop->getLoopLatch(); | ||
| Value *IncomingValue = ExitPhi.getIncomingValueForBlock(ExitingBB); | ||
| VPValue *V = Builder.getVPValueOrAddLiveIn(IncomingValue); | ||
| ExitIRI->addOperand(V); | ||
| assert(ExitIRI->getNumOperands() == 1 && "must have a single operand"); | ||
| VPValue *V = ExitIRI->getOperand(0); | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Worth asserting that ExitIRI has a single operand? Expected to match its single middle-block predecessor.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Done, thanks |
||
| if (V->isLiveIn()) | ||
| continue; | ||
| assert(V->getDefiningRecipe()->getParent()->getEnclosingLoopRegion() && | ||
|
|
@@ -9421,7 +9417,7 @@ addUsersInExitBlocks(VPlan &Plan, | |
| ExitIRI->getParent()->getSinglePredecessor() == MiddleVPBB && | ||
| "exit values from early exits must be fixed when branch to " | ||
| "early-exit is added"); | ||
| ExitIRI->extractLastLaneOfOperand(B); | ||
| ExitIRI->extractLastLaneOfFirstOperand(B); | ||
|
Comment on lines
9420
to
+9423
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Independent: |
||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -352,6 +352,20 @@ std::unique_ptr<VPlan> PlainCFGBuilder::buildPlainCFG( | |||||
| Plan->getEntry()->setOneSuccessor(getOrCreateVPBB(TheLoop->getHeader())); | ||||||
| Plan->getEntry()->setPlan(&*Plan); | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| // Fix VPlan loop-closed-ssa exit phi's by add incoming operands to the | ||||||
|
||||||
| // Fix VPlan loop-closed-ssa exit phi's by add incoming operands to the | |
| // Fix VPlan loop-closed-ssa exit phi's by adding incoming operands to the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
assert PhiR is still w/o any operand?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Order of operands set here corresponds to the order of predecessors of underlying IRBB, before EB VPBB has predecessors. This inconsistency requires attention later, when these predecessors are added, possibly in a different order. May be worth leaving a note.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Deserves mentioning in createLoopRegions()'s documentation? Which indeed does much more than create loop regions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be best to separate region creation from other 'skeleton additions' separately instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems so - better build the complete skeleton CFG first, then convert it to HCFG by converting its loops into regions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will do separately, thanks!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be taken care of in d2ce88a, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The case
// 2) If we require a scalar epilogue, there is no conditional branch as
// we unconditionally branch to the scalar preheader. Do nothing.
is handle by early return above. Better place the explanation earlier, and replace "Do nothing" with "Empty the unreachable exit blocks of their recipes". The connection from scalar loop to exit blocks is (currently) outside of VPlan's scope.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done, thanks. Also changed 2->1 as this is the first handled case.
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -1137,10 +1137,10 @@ InstructionCost VPIRInstruction::computeCost(ElementCount VF, | |||||||||||||
| return 0; | ||||||||||||||
| } | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| void VPIRInstruction::extractLastLaneOfOperand(VPBuilder &Builder) { | ||||||||||||||
| void VPIRInstruction::extractLastLaneOfFirstOperand(VPBuilder &Builder) { | ||||||||||||||
| assert(isa<PHINode>(getInstruction()) && | ||||||||||||||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Independent: should this be implemented for VPIRPhi instead?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Will update separately, thanks |
||||||||||||||
| "can only add exiting operands to phi nodes"); | ||||||||||||||
| assert(getNumOperands() == 1 && "must have a single operand"); | ||||||||||||||
| "can only update exiting operands to phi nodes"); | ||||||||||||||
| assert(getNumOperands() > 0 && "must have at least one operand"); | ||||||||||||||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. And yet we continue to extract the first operand, only? extractLastLaneOf[First]Operand()
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yep, updated the name, thanks |
||||||||||||||
| VPValue *Exiting = getOperand(0); | ||||||||||||||
| if (!Exiting->isLiveIn()) { | ||||||||||||||
|
Comment on lines
1144
to
1145
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Will adjust separately, thanks
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. done in 71f2c1e |
||||||||||||||
| LLVMContext &Ctx = getInstruction().getContext(); | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -2505,35 +2505,43 @@ void VPlanTransforms::handleUncountableEarlyExit( | |||||||||||||||||
| VPBuilder EarlyExitB(VectorEarlyExitVPBB); | ||||||||||||||||||
| for (VPRecipeBase &R : VPEarlyExitBlock->phis()) { | ||||||||||||||||||
| auto *ExitIRI = cast<VPIRPhi>(&R); | ||||||||||||||||||
| PHINode &ExitPhi = ExitIRI->getIRPhi(); | ||||||||||||||||||
| VPValue *IncomingFromEarlyExit = RecipeBuilder.getVPValueOrAddLiveIn( | ||||||||||||||||||
| ExitPhi.getIncomingValueForBlock(UncountableExitingBlock)); | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| // By default, assume early exit operand is first, e.g., when the two exit | ||||||||||||||||||
| // blocks are distinct - VPEarlyExitBlock has a single predecessor. | ||||||||||||||||||
| unsigned EarlyExitIdx = 0; | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| unsigned EarlyExitIdx = 0; | |
| // By default, assume early exit operand is first, e.g., when the two exit blocks are distinct - VPEarlyExitBlock has a single predecessor. | |
| unsigned EarlyExitIdx = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, perhaps its better instead to set EarlyExitIdx to be the last operand, consistently?
If VPEarlyExitBlock has two predecessors, they are already ordered such that early exit is second, by construction. But its underlying IRBB may have its predecessors ordered the other way around, and it is this order which corresponds to the order of operands of VPEarlyExitBlock's phi recipes. Therefore, if early exit is the first predecessor of the underlying IRBB, we swap the operands of phi recipes, bringing them to match VPEarlyExitBlock's predecessor order with early exit being last (second).
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On second thought, could we agree on
| // By default, assume early exit operand is first, e.g., when the two exit | |
| // blocks are distinct - VPEarlyExitBlock has a single predecessor. | |
| unsigned EarlyExitIdx = 0; | |
| // Early exit operand should always be last, i.e., 0 if VPEarlyExitBlock has a single predecessor and 1 if it has two. | |
| unsigned EarlyExitIdx = ExitIRI->getNumOperands() - 1; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Independent: better ask instead if VPEarlyExitBlock has two predecessors? One (the last) was added above - VectorEarlyExitVPBB. This should match the case where OrigLoop has a unique exit block - which would be aka VPEarlyExitBlock, or rather its underlying EarlyExitIRBB.
| if (OrigLoop->getUniqueExitBlock()) { | |
| if (VPEarlyExitBlock->getNumPredecessors() == 2) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will check separately, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok. It's more consistent with following explanation.
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Still a seems a bit confusing. Would something like this read clearer:
If VPEarlyExitBlock has two predecessors, they are already ordered such that early exit is second (and latch exit is first), by construction. But its underlying IRBB (EarlyExitIRBB) may have its predecessors ordered the other way around, and it is the order of the latter which corresponds to the order of operands of VPEarlyExitBlock's phi recipes. Therefore, if early exit (UncountableExitingBlock) is the first predecessor of EarlyExitIRBB, we swap the operands of phi recipes, thereby bringing them to match VPEarlyExitBlock's predecessor order, with early exit being last (second). Otherwise they already match.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Adjusted, thanks
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this clearer?
| if (*pred_begin(VPEarlyExitBlock->getIRBasicBlock()) != | |
| OrigLoop->getLoopLatch()) | |
| if (*pred_begin(EarlyExitIRBB) == UncountableExitingBlock) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done thanks
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| // If there's a unique exit block, VPEarlyExitBlock has 2 predecessors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done thanks
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
| // (MiddleVPBB and NewMiddle). Extract the last lane of the incoming value | |
| // from MiddleVPBB which is coming from the original latch. | |
| // The first of two operands corresponds to the latch exit, via MiddleVPBB predecessor. | |
| // Extract its last lane. |
(The other immediate predecessor, which corresponds to early exit, is VectorEarlyExitVPBB, rather than NewMiddle).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Independent: clamping range inside VPlanTransform? Limiting the range to scalar VF - is another VPlan constructed for the vector (sub)range?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is done early on when we are clamping the loop range for other reasons as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(Independent) Still puzzled about clamping the range at this stage, when all VPlans were already created following range clampings. Rather than say asserting that the range contains either scalar or vector VF's but not both, and introduce extracts if it's the latter. Extracts added above for latch exit need not check vector VF's?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the transform isn't run when all VPlans have been created, but in tryToBuildVPlanWithVPRecipes where we the range is also clamped in other places ( https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp#L9758)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ahh, very well, thanks.
(Independent) May be good to indicate somehow transforms that may clamp the range - that belong to tryToBuildVPlanWithVPRecipes stage, and prevent them from operating afterwards, perhaps by disabling range clamping afterwards?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The range should only be available in tryToBuildVPlanWithVPRecipes and not subsequent optimizations; we could seaprate things even clearer by first building all VPlans (i.e. only do tryToBuildVPlanWithVPRecipes) and then optimize all VPlans separatel
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated name, thanks