When peeling loops basing on phis becoming invariants, we make a wrong loop size check.
UP.Threshold should be compared against the total numbers of instructions after the transformation,
which is equal to 2 * LoopSize in case of peeling one iteration.
We should also check that the maximum allowed number of peeled iterations is not zero.
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31753
llvm-svn: 300441
Summary:
We should check if loop size allows us to peel at least one iteration
before we do so.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, mkuper, efriedma
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30632
llvm-svn: 297122
Summary:
If a loop contains a Phi node which has an invariant input from back
edge, it is profitable to peel such loops (rather than unroll them) to
use the advantage that this Phi is always invariant starting from 2nd
iteration. After the 1st iteration is peeled, other optimizations can
potentially simplify calculations with this invariant.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, anna, mkuper, reames
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, mzolotukhin, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30161
llvm-svn: 296898
Summary:
In current implementation the loop peeling happens after trip-count based partial unrolling and may
sometimes not happen at all due to it (for example, if trip count is known, but UP.Partial = false). This
is generally bad, the more than there are some situations where peeling is profitable even if the partial
unrolling is disabled.
This patch is a NFC which reorders peeling and partial unrolling application and prepares the code for
implementation of the said optimizations.
Patch by Max Kazantsev!
Reviewers: sanjoy, anna, reames, apilipenko, igor-laevsky, mkuper
Reviewed By: mkuper
Subscribers: mkuper, llvm-commits, mzolotukhin
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30243
llvm-svn: 296897
With this change dominator tree remains in sync after each step of loop
peeling.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D29029
llvm-svn: 292895
Mostly straightforward changes; we just didn't do the computation before.
One sort of interesting change in LoopUnroll.cpp: we weren't handling
dominance for children of the loop latch correctly, but
foldBlockIntoPredecessor hid the problem for complete unrolling.
Currently punting on loop peeling; made some minor changes to isolate
that problem to LoopUnrollPeel.cpp.
Adds a flag -unroll-verify-domtree; it verifies the domtree immediately
after we finish updating it. This is on by default for +Asserts builds.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28073
llvm-svn: 292447
Summary:
Regardless how the loop body weight is distributed, we should preserve
total loop body weight. i.e. we should have same weight reaching the body of the loop
or its duplicates in peeled and unpeeled case.
Reviewers: mkuper, davidxl, anemet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28179
llvm-svn: 290833
This implements PGO-driven loop peeling.
The basic idea is that when the average dynamic trip-count of a loop is known,
based on PGO, to be low, we can expect a performance win by peeling off the
first several iterations of that loop.
Unlike unrolling based on a known trip count, or a trip count multiple, this
doesn't save us the conditional check and branch on each iteration. However,
it does allow us to simplify the straight-line code we get (constant-folding,
etc.). This is important given that we know that we will usually only hit this
code, and not the actual loop.
This is currently disabled by default.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25963
llvm-svn: 288274
