Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 11 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
92 changes: 51 additions & 41 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanConstruction.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -182,11 +182,6 @@ void PlainCFGBuilder::createVPInstructionsForVPBB(VPBasicBlock *VPBB,
"Instruction shouldn't have been visited.");

if (auto *Br = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(Inst)) {
if (TheLoop->getLoopLatch() == BB ||
any_of(successors(BB),
[this](BasicBlock *Succ) { return !TheLoop->contains(Succ); }))
continue;

// Conditional branch instruction are represented using BranchOnCond
// recipes.
if (Br->isConditional()) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: seems a bit clearer to early continue?

Suggested change
if (Br->isConditional()) {
if (!Br->isConditional())
continue;

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, ignore, we continue also after handling a conditional branch.

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -251,6 +246,8 @@ std::unique_ptr<VPlan> PlainCFGBuilder::buildPlainCFG(
DenseMap<VPBlockBase *, BasicBlock *> &VPB2IRBB) {
VPIRBasicBlock *Entry = cast<VPIRBasicBlock>(Plan->getEntry());
BB2VPBB[Entry->getIRBasicBlock()] = Entry;
for (VPIRBasicBlock *ExitVPBB : Plan->getExitBlocks())
BB2VPBB[ExitVPBB->getIRBasicBlock()] = ExitVPBB;

// 1. Scan the body of the loop in a topological order to visit each basic
// block after having visited its predecessor basic blocks. Create a VPBB for
Expand All @@ -276,7 +273,6 @@ std::unique_ptr<VPlan> PlainCFGBuilder::buildPlainCFG(
for (BasicBlock *BB : RPO) {
// Create or retrieve the VPBasicBlock for this BB.
VPBasicBlock *VPBB = getOrCreateVPBB(BB);
Loop *LoopForBB = LI->getLoopFor(BB);
// Set VPBB predecessors in the same order as they are in the incoming BB.
setVPBBPredsFromBB(VPBB, BB);

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -307,24 +303,12 @@ std::unique_ptr<VPlan> PlainCFGBuilder::buildPlainCFG(
BasicBlock *IRSucc1 = BI->getSuccessor(1);
VPBasicBlock *Successor0 = getOrCreateVPBB(IRSucc0);
VPBasicBlock *Successor1 = getOrCreateVPBB(IRSucc1);

// Don't connect any blocks outside the current loop except the latches for
// inner loops.
// TODO: Also connect exit blocks during initial VPlan construction.
if (LoopForBB == TheLoop || BB != LoopForBB->getLoopLatch()) {
if (!LoopForBB->contains(IRSucc0)) {
VPBB->setOneSuccessor(Successor1);
continue;
}
if (!LoopForBB->contains(IRSucc1)) {
VPBB->setOneSuccessor(Successor0);
continue;
}
}

VPBB->setTwoSuccessors(Successor0, Successor1);
}

for (auto *EB : Plan->getExitBlocks())
setVPBBPredsFromBB(EB, EB->getIRBasicBlock());

// 2. The whole CFG has been built at this point so all the input Values must
// have a VPlan counterpart. Fix VPlan header phi by adding their
// corresponding VPlan operands.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -424,22 +408,27 @@ static void createLoopRegion(VPlan &Plan, VPBlockBase *HeaderVPB) {

VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(PreheaderVPBB, HeaderVPB);
VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(LatchVPBB, HeaderVPB);
VPBlockBase *Succ = LatchVPBB->getSingleSuccessor();
assert(LatchVPBB->getNumSuccessors() <= 1 &&
"Latch has more than one successor");
if (Succ)
VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(LatchVPBB, Succ);

auto *R = Plan.createVPRegionBlock(HeaderVPB, LatchVPBB, "",
false /*isReplicator*/);
// All VPBB's reachable shallowly from HeaderVPB belong to top level loop,
// because VPlan is expected to end at top level latch disconnected above.
VPBlockBase *LatchExitVPB = LatchVPBB->getSingleSuccessor();
assert(LatchExitVPB && "Latch expected to be left with a single successor");

// Create an empty region first and insert it between PreheaderVPBB and
// LatchExitVPB, taking care to preserve the original predecessor & successor
// order of blocks. Set region entry and exiting after both HeaderVPB and
// LatchVPBB have been disconnected from their predecessors/successors.
auto *R = Plan.createVPRegionBlock("", false /*isReplicator*/);
VPBlockUtils::insertOnEdge(LatchVPBB, LatchExitVPB, R);
VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(LatchVPBB, R);
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(PreheaderVPBB, R);
R->setEntry(HeaderVPB);
R->setExiting(LatchVPBB);

// All VPBB's reachable shallowly from HeaderVPB belong to the current region,
// except the exit blocks reachable via non-latch exiting blocks.
SmallPtrSet<VPBlockBase *, 2> ExitBlocks(Plan.getExitBlocks().begin(),
Plan.getExitBlocks().end());
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
SmallPtrSet<VPBlockBase *, 2> ExitBlocks(Plan.getExitBlocks().begin(),
Plan.getExitBlocks().end());

?

for (VPBlockBase *VPBB : vp_depth_first_shallow(HeaderVPB))
VPBB->setParent(R);

VPBlockUtils::insertBlockAfter(R, PreheaderVPBB);
if (Succ)
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(R, Succ);
if (!ExitBlocks.contains(VPBB))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can now reach exit blocks, contrary to above comment, via early exits?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, comment updated, thanks!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm2, createLoopRegion() is called after prepareForVectorization(), which according to the changes below should have removed all early-exit edges, so is this check (if VPBB is an exit block) needed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not reachable in the latest version, removed thanks!

VPBB->setParent(R);
}

// Add the necessary canonical IV and branch recipes required to control the
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -491,12 +480,34 @@ void VPlanTransforms::prepareForVectorization(VPlan &Plan, Type *InductionTy,
VPBlockUtils::insertBlockAfter(VecPreheader, Plan.getEntry());

VPBasicBlock *MiddleVPBB = Plan.createVPBasicBlock("middle.block");
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(LatchVPB, MiddleVPBB);
LatchVPB->swapSuccessors();
// The canonical LatchVPB has the header block as last successor. If it has
// another successor, this successor is an exit block - insert middle block on
// its edge. Otherwise, add middle block as another successor retaining header
// as last.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, prepareForVectorization() is called after buildPlainCFG() (for both native and non-native paths), and with the above changes, buildPlainCFG() connects the latch to both header and exit blocks, i.e., should LatchVPB always have two successors now?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can vectorize loops where the latch isn’t exiting, by requiring at least one iteration in the scalar loop. In that case, the original latch will
Have a single successor

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah, right, thanks. Perhaps worth a comment.

if (LatchVPB->getNumSuccessors() == 2) {
VPBlockBase *LatchExitVPB = LatchVPB->getSuccessors()[0];
VPBlockUtils::insertOnEdge(LatchVPB, LatchExitVPB, MiddleVPBB);
} else {
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(LatchVPB, MiddleVPBB);
LatchVPB->swapSuccessors();
}

addCanonicalIVRecipes(Plan, cast<VPBasicBlock>(HeaderVPB),
cast<VPBasicBlock>(LatchVPB), InductionTy, IVDL);

// Disconnect all edges to exit blocks other than from the middle block.
// TODO: VPlans with early exits should be explicitly converted to a form
// exiting only via the latch here, including adjusting the exit condition,
// instead of simply disconnecting the edges and adjusting the VPlan later.
for (VPBlockBase *EB : Plan.getExitBlocks()) {
for (VPBlockBase *Pred : to_vector(EB->getPredecessors())) {
if (Pred == MiddleVPBB)
continue;
cast<VPBasicBlock>(Pred)->getTerminator()->eraseFromParent();
VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(Pred, EB);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks a bit odd at first as it seems to be undoing what you did above with VPBlockUtils::insertOnEdge(LatchVPB, LatchExitVPB, MiddleVPBB);. I presume that's because the vector.early.exit VPBB sits between the latch block and the original IR early exit block?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The edge from MiddleVPBB to LatchExitVPB is retained here explicitly via the early-continue exclusion. The edges removed here are early-exits from non-latch Pred block to early.exit block. Block vector.early.exit is introduced by handleUncountableEarlyExit() which currently takes place later.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Above with insertOnEdge we only handle the edge exiting from the latch. The exit block via the latch will now be connected to the middle block.

The loop here disconnects all early exits and they will be handled later: either by requiring at least one scalar iteration, nothing more needs to be done, or introducing the early exit control flow to go to the early exit via the additional middle block. For the latter case, the VPlan is now incomplete/incorrect.

To avoid this, we should directly handle the uncountable early exits here, which is done in #138393. This way, we do not need to rely on IR references in handleUncountableEarlyExit and the VPlan remains complete/correct throughout.

}
}

// Create SCEV and VPValue for the trip count.
// We use the symbolic max backedge-taken-count, which works also when
// vectorizing loops with uncountable early exits.
Expand All @@ -523,6 +534,8 @@ void VPlanTransforms::prepareForVectorization(VPlan &Plan, Type *InductionTy,
// 3) Otherwise, construct a runtime check.

if (!RequiresScalarEpilogueCheck) {
if (auto *LatchExitVPB = MiddleVPBB->getSingleSuccessor())
VPBlockUtils::disconnectBlocks(MiddleVPBB, LatchExitVPB);
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(MiddleVPBB, ScalarPH);
// The exit blocks are unreachable, remove their recipes to make sure no
// users remain that may pessimize transforms.
Expand All @@ -534,9 +547,6 @@ void VPlanTransforms::prepareForVectorization(VPlan &Plan, Type *InductionTy,
}

// The connection order corresponds to the operands of the conditional branch.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"// with middle block already connected to exit block."?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

added thanks

BasicBlock *IRExitBlock = TheLoop->getUniqueLatchExitBlock();
auto *VPExitBlock = Plan.getExitBlock(IRExitBlock);
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(MiddleVPBB, VPExitBlock);
VPBlockUtils::connectBlocks(MiddleVPBB, ScalarPH);

auto *ScalarLatchTerm = TheLoop->getLoopLatch()->getTerminator();
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -31,7 +31,11 @@ define void @foo(i64 %n) {
; CHECK-NEXT: outer.latch:
; CHECK-NEXT: EMIT ir<%outer.iv.next> = add ir<%outer.iv>, ir<1>
; CHECK-NEXT: EMIT ir<%outer.ec> = icmp ir<%outer.iv.next>, ir<8>
; CHECK-NEXT: Successor(s): outer.header
; CHECK-NEXT: EMIT branch-on-cond ir<%outer.ec>
; CHECK-NEXT: Successor(s): ir-bb<exit>, outer.header
; CHECK-EMPTY:
; CHECK-NEXT: ir-bb<exit>:
; CHECK-NEXT: No successors
; CHECK-NEXT: }
entry:
br label %outer.header
Expand Down
7 changes: 5 additions & 2 deletions llvm/unittests/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlanHCFGTest.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ TEST_F(VPlanHCFGTest, testBuildHCFGInnerLoop) {
// Check that the region following the preheader consists of a block for the
// original header and a separate latch.
VPBasicBlock *VecBB = Plan->getVectorLoopRegion()->getEntryBasicBlock();
EXPECT_EQ(10u, VecBB->size());
EXPECT_EQ(11u, VecBB->size());
EXPECT_EQ(0u, VecBB->getNumPredecessors());
EXPECT_EQ(0u, VecBB->getNumSuccessors());
EXPECT_EQ(VecBB->getParent()->getEntryBasicBlock(), VecBB);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -129,6 +129,7 @@ compound=true
" EMIT store ir\<%res\>, ir\<%arr.idx\>\l" +
" EMIT ir\<%indvars.iv.next\> = add ir\<%indvars.iv\>, ir\<1\>\l" +
" EMIT ir\<%exitcond\> = icmp ir\<%indvars.iv.next\>, ir\<%N\>\l" +
" EMIT vp\<%3\> = not ir\<%exitcond\>\l" +
" EMIT vp\<%index.next\> = add nuw vp\<%2\>, vp\<%0\>\l" +
" EMIT branch-on-count vp\<%index.next\>, vp\<%1\>\l" +
"No successors\l"
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ TEST_F(VPlanHCFGTest, testVPInstructionToVPRecipesInner) {
// Check that the region following the preheader consists of a block for the
// original header and a separate latch.
VPBasicBlock *VecBB = Plan->getVectorLoopRegion()->getEntryBasicBlock();
EXPECT_EQ(11u, VecBB->size());
EXPECT_EQ(12u, VecBB->size());
EXPECT_EQ(0u, VecBB->getNumPredecessors());
EXPECT_EQ(0u, VecBB->getNumSuccessors());
EXPECT_EQ(VecBB->getParent()->getEntryBasicBlock(), VecBB);
Expand All @@ -229,6 +230,7 @@ TEST_F(VPlanHCFGTest, testVPInstructionToVPRecipesInner) {
EXPECT_NE(nullptr, dyn_cast<VPInstruction>(&*Iter++));
EXPECT_NE(nullptr, dyn_cast<VPInstruction>(&*Iter++));
EXPECT_NE(nullptr, dyn_cast<VPInstruction>(&*Iter++));
EXPECT_NE(nullptr, dyn_cast<VPInstruction>(&*Iter++));
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The previous case didn't check all instructions (that Iter reached VecBB->end()), so avoid checking the new last instruction, as done here?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

left as is for now, just carrying the curent behavior forward as this checks that we reach VecBB->end(). Might be something to be done separately? Or checking if we have the expected canonical instructions, which may make the test more brittle.

EXPECT_EQ(VecBB->end(), Iter);
}

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -302,6 +304,7 @@ compound=true
" EMIT store ir\<%res\>, ir\<%arr.idx\>\l" +
" EMIT ir\<%iv.next\> = add ir\<%iv\>, ir\<1\>\l" +
" EMIT ir\<%exitcond\> = icmp ir\<%iv.next\>, ir\<%N\>\l" +
" EMIT vp\<%3\> = not ir\<%exitcond\>\l" +
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should vp%3 be used, also above.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, at this point we already added the canonical branch to control the loop; the old conditions will be cleaned up by DCE

" EMIT vp\<%index.next\> = add nuw vp\<%2\>, vp\<%0\>\l" +
" EMIT branch-on-count vp\<%index.next\>, vp\<%1\>\l" +
"No successors\l"
Expand Down