-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.9k
[BranchFolding] Fold fallthroughs into conditional tailcalls if profitable #140476
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
Open
omern1
wants to merge
8
commits into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
omern1:omern1/condtailcalls
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c58375b
[BranchFolding] Fold fallthroughs into conditional tailcalls if
omern1 4f292c1
Fix formatting
omern1 19f7fd4
Update tests
omern1 15526b9
Update name
omern1 e9db1c8
Update tests
omern1 8a4c2bf
Update test to address unrelated changes
omern1 a267468
Ensure tailcall forming before reversing branch
omern1 9aad503
Merge branch 'main' into omern1/condtailcalls
omern1 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
what happens to the profile (branch weights) in this case?
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.
Thanks for looking at this @mtrofin.
My understanding is that the weights are still correct because we're eleminating one of the successors so the weights for that just get dropped.
I've updated my patch to ensure that if we get to the point where we reverse the branch we're sure that we're going to form a conditional tailcall.
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.
But isn't the tail call still conditioned on
ReversedCond
? From what I read in e.g. the@true_likely
test , you end up with:So there's still a question of what's the probability you jump to func_false vs func_true (the fallthrough). What am I missing?
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.
I think I'm not understanding your concern, could you please clarify further?
With my patch applied we get the following probability out of branch-folder for the
true_likely
test:%bb.1
is the hot fallthrough successor.The probabilities in the input MIR are:
This seems correct to me based on the following assumptions: