Skip to content
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

[VPlan] First step towards VPlan cost modeling. #92555

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
Jun 13, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 11 commits
Commits
Show all changes
33 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
98230db
[VPlan] First step towards VPlan cost modeling.
fhahn Sep 27, 2023
6330a67
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost
fhahn May 9, 2024
0da9e25
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost
fhahn May 9, 2024
52786ae
!fixup address latest comments, thanks!
fhahn May 9, 2024
7043085
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost
fhahn May 17, 2024
d2fa5ee
!fixup Move legacy CM to context.
fhahn May 17, 2024
b1ab1b8
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 22, 2024
c91f8ba
!fixup
fhahn May 22, 2024
e1cd132
!fixup fix formatting.
fhahn May 22, 2024
e66563b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 23, 2024
9a4111d
!fixup addres latest comments, thanks
fhahn May 23, 2024
faa855d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 27, 2024
860aae1
!fixup address latest comments, thanks!
fhahn May 27, 2024
32fc296
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 27, 2024
17442f9
!fixup address comments, thanks!
fhahn May 28, 2024
b27201c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 31, 2024
24e03bd
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn May 31, 2024
1ae4d60
[LV] Add test with strided interleave groups and maximizing bandwidth.
fhahn Jun 1, 2024
423adca
[LV] Operands feeding pointers of interleave member pointers are free.
fhahn Jun 1, 2024
8ff3109
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 1, 2024
f49ed3f
!fixup address comments, thanks!
fhahn Jun 1, 2024
204dfaf
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 2, 2024
389e841
!fixup address latest comments, thanks!
fhahn Jun 3, 2024
2c3e408
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 7, 2024
9c69bfb
!fixup address latest comments, thanks!
fhahn Jun 7, 2024
7b7581b
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 9, 2024
de59992
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 10, 2024
f5f3581
!fixup handle any_of reduction cost and multi exit cond cost.
fhahn Jun 10, 2024
d13777c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 10, 2024
9c99b10
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 12, 2024
bd14e40
!fixup address latest comments, thanks
fhahn Jun 12, 2024
b316c55
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into vplan-cost-cm-in-ctx
fhahn Jun 13, 2024
692a55c
!fixup address latest comments, thanks!
fhahn Jun 13, 2024
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
12 changes: 12 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorizationPlanner.h
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -344,6 +344,15 @@ class LoopVectorizationPlanner {
/// A builder used to construct the current plan.
VPBuilder Builder;

/// Computes the cost of \p Plan for vectorization factor \p VF.
///
/// The current implementation requires access to the legacy cost model which
/// is why it is kept separate from the VPlan-only cost infrastructure.
///
/// TODO: Move to VPlan::computeCost once the use of the legacy cost model
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
/// TODO: Move to VPlan::computeCost once the use of the legacy cost model
/// TODO: Move to VPlan::computeCost once the use of Legal

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

fixed, thanks!

/// has been retired.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This has more to do with Legal::inductions and reductions, and their CM cost; the former are kept separate from VPlan and its cost implementation, rather than the latter, atm.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!

InstructionCost computeCost(VPlan &Plan, ElementCount VF) const;

public:
LoopVectorizationPlanner(
Loop *L, LoopInfo *LI, DominatorTree *DT, const TargetLibraryInfo *TLI,
Expand All @@ -365,6 +374,9 @@ class LoopVectorizationPlanner {
/// Return the best VPlan for \p VF.
VPlan &getBestPlanFor(ElementCount VF) const;

/// Return the most profitable plan.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note this also fixes the best VF.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!

VPlan &getBestPlan() const;

/// Generate the IR code for the vectorized loop captured in VPlan \p BestPlan
/// according to the best selected \p VF and \p UF.
///
Expand Down
150 changes: 137 additions & 13 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@
#include "VPlan.h"
#include "VPlanAnalysis.h"
#include "VPlanHCFGBuilder.h"
#include "VPlanPatternMatch.h"
#include "VPlanTransforms.h"
#include "VPlanVerifier.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/APInt.h"
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -289,7 +290,7 @@ static cl::opt<unsigned> ForceTargetMaxVectorInterleaveFactor(
cl::desc("A flag that overrides the target's max interleave factor for "
"vectorized loops."));

static cl::opt<unsigned> ForceTargetInstructionCost(
cl::opt<unsigned> ForceTargetInstructionCost(
"force-target-instruction-cost", cl::init(0), cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("A flag that overrides the target's expected cost for "
"an instruction to a single constant value. Mostly "
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1621,6 +1622,16 @@ class LoopVectorizationCostModel {
/// \p VF is the vectorization factor chosen for the original loop.
bool isEpilogueVectorizationProfitable(const ElementCount VF) const;

/// Return the cost of instructions in an inloop reduction pattern, if I is
/// part of that pattern.
Comment on lines +1616 to +1617
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
/// Return the cost of instructions in an inloop reduction pattern, if I is
/// part of that pattern.
/// Return the cost of instructions in an inloop reduction pattern, if \p I
/// is part of that pattern.

(unrelated to this patch).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will adjust separately.

std::optional<InstructionCost>
getReductionPatternCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF, Type *VectorTy,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Better called getInLoopReductionPatternCost()?
(unrelated to this patch).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will adjust separately.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Will adjust separately.

Very well. Another suggestion is to use Invalid cost for "no cost" instead of optional.

TTI::TargetCostKind CostKind) const;

/// Returns the execution time cost of an instruction for a given vector
/// width. Vector width of one means scalar.
VectorizationCostTy getInstructionCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF);

private:
unsigned NumPredStores = 0;

Expand All @@ -1646,21 +1657,11 @@ class LoopVectorizationCostModel {
/// of elements.
ElementCount getMaxLegalScalableVF(unsigned MaxSafeElements);

/// Returns the execution time cost of an instruction for a given vector
/// width. Vector width of one means scalar.
VectorizationCostTy getInstructionCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF);

/// The cost-computation logic from getInstructionCost which provides
/// the vector type as an output parameter.
InstructionCost getInstructionCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF,
Type *&VectorTy);

/// Return the cost of instructions in an inloop reduction pattern, if I is
/// part of that pattern.
std::optional<InstructionCost>
getReductionPatternCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF, Type *VectorTy,
TTI::TargetCostKind CostKind) const;

/// Calculate vectorization cost of memory instruction \p I.
InstructionCost getMemoryInstructionCost(Instruction *I, ElementCount VF);

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -7396,6 +7397,122 @@ LoopVectorizationPlanner::plan(ElementCount UserVF, unsigned UserIC) {
return VF;
}

InstructionCost VPCostContext::getLegacyCost(Instruction *UI, ElementCount VF) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

const?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

done, thanks!

return CM.getInstructionCost(UI, VF).first;
}

bool VPCostContext::skipCostComputation(Instruction *UI) const {
return CM.VecValuesToIgnore.contains(UI) || SkipCostComputation.contains(UI);
}

InstructionCost LoopVectorizationPlanner::computeCost(VPlan &Plan,
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
InstructionCost LoopVectorizationPlanner::computeCost(VPlan &Plan,
InstructionCost LoopVectorizationPlanner::cost(VPlan &Plan,

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Renamed, thanks!

ElementCount VF) const {
InstructionCost Cost = 0;
LLVMContext &LLVMCtx = OrigLoop->getHeader()->getContext();
VPCostContext CostCtx(CM.TTI, Legal->getWidestInductionType(), LLVMCtx, CM);

// Cost modeling for inductions is inaccurate in the legacy cost model
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth indicating that this is restricted to the cost of the induction bump only.

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 as below, thanks!

// compared to the recipes that are generated. To match here initially during
// VPlan cost model bring up directly use the induction costs from the legacy
// cost model and skip induction bump recipes. Note that we do this as
// pre-processing; the VPlan may not have any recipes associated with the
// original induction increment instruction.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

... in this case, if VPlan has a bump recipe w/o such association, its cost will be accumulated along with that of the original induction increment instruction below?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, but that is not the case at the moment.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK, worth clarifying in the comment?

If original induction increment instructions do have recipes, is this pre-processing needed, in this preliminary version where recipe costs default to the CM cost of their underlying instructions? Perhaps to retain debug dumps.

Instructions associated with in-loop reductions do need to be pre-processed in order to take their getReductionPatternCost() rather than their getInstructionCost().

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If original induction increment instructions do have recipes, is this pre-processing needed, in this preliminary version where recipe costs default to the CM cost of their underlying instructions

Tried to clarify, at this point we cannot easily check if a recipe for the induction bump has been generated (one is created if there are other users). Pre-processing handles both cases (with and w/o widen recipe for the induction increment), hopefully the comment is clearer now.

// TODO: Switch to more accurate costing based on VPlan.
for (const auto &[IV, _] : Legal->getInductionVars()) {
Instruction *IVInc = cast<Instruction>(
IV->getIncomingValueForBlock(OrigLoop->getLoopLatch()));
InstructionCost InductionCost = CM.getInstructionCost(IVInc, VF).first;
LLVM_DEBUG({
dbgs() << "Cost of " << InductionCost << " for VF " << VF
<< ":\n induction increment " << *IVInc << "\n";
IVInc->dump();
});
Cost += InductionCost;
assert(!CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.contains(IVInc) &&
"Same IV increment for multiple inductions?");
CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.insert(IVInc);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth asserting IVInc is not already in there?

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!

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
LLVM_DEBUG({
dbgs() << "Cost of " << InductionCost << " for VF " << VF
<< ":\n induction increment " << *IVInc << "\n";
IVInc->dump();
});
Cost += InductionCost;
assert(!CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.contains(IVInc) &&
"Same IV increment for multiple inductions?");
CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.insert(IVInc);
assert(!CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.contains(IVInc) &&
"Same IV increment for multiple inductions?");
CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.insert(IVInc);
LLVM_DEBUG({
dbgs() << "Cost of " << InductionCost << " for VF " << VF
<< ":\n induction increment " << *IVInc << "\n";
IVInc->dump();
});
Cost += InductionCost;

consistent with the order of asserting/marking-dumping-accumulating the costs of reductions below; there they depend on having a cost, here it is independent of cost.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

reordered, thanks!

}

// The legacy cost model has special logic to compute the cost of in-loop
// reductions, which may be smaller than the sum of all instructions involved
// in the reduction. Pre-compute the cost for now.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Augment comment to also address AnyOf reductions.

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!

// TODO: Switch to costing based on VPlan once the logic has been ported.
for (const auto &[RedPhi, RdxDesc] : Legal->getReductionVars()) {
if (!CM.isInLoopReduction(RedPhi))
continue;

const auto &ChainOps = RdxDesc.getReductionOpChain(RedPhi, OrigLoop);
SetVector<Instruction *> ReductionOperations(ChainOps.begin(),
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
SetVector<Instruction *> ReductionOperations(ChainOps.begin(),
SetVector<Instruction *> ChainOpsAndOperands(ChainOps.begin(),

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Renamed, thanks!

ChainOps.end());
// Also include the operands of instructions in the chain, as the cost-model
// may mark extends as free.
for (unsigned I = 0, E = ReductionOperations.size(); I != E; ++I) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Better iterate over ChainOps directly here rather than over the first E entries of ReductionOperations? Only direct operands are visited.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!

for (Value *Op : ReductionOperations[I]->operands()) {
if (auto *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(Op))
ReductionOperations.insert(I);
}
}
for (Instruction *I : ReductionOperations) {
auto ReductionCost = CM.getReductionPatternCost(
I, VF, ToVectorTy(I->getType(), VF), TTI::TCK_RecipThroughput);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth a comment that we precompute the cost of I only if it is associated with a reduction pattern, i.e., has ReductionCost.

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.

if (!ReductionCost)
continue;

assert(!CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.contains(I) &&
"reduction op visited multiple times");
CostCtx.SkipCostComputation.insert(I);
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Cost of " << ReductionCost << " for VF " << VF
<< ":\n in-loop reduction " << *I << "\n");
Cost += *ReductionCost;
}
}

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth emphasizing that

Suggested change
// Now compute and add the VPlan-based cost.

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!

Cost += Plan.computeCost(VF, CostCtx);
// Add the cost for the backedge.
Cost += 1;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This can and should be taken care of by (loop) region::computeCost()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved, thanks!

LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "Cost for VF " << VF << ": " << Cost << "\n");
return Cost;
}

VPlan &LoopVectorizationPlanner::getBestPlan() const {
// If there is a single VPlan with a single VF, return it directly.
VPlan &FirstPlan = *VPlans[0];
if (VPlans.size() == 1 && size(FirstPlan.vectorFactors()) == 1)
return FirstPlan;

VPlan *BestPlan = &FirstPlan;
ElementCount ScalarVF = ElementCount::getFixed(1);
assert(hasPlanWithVF(ScalarVF) &&
"More than a single plan/VF w/o any plan having scalar VF");

InstructionCost ScalarCost =
computeCost(getBestPlanFor(ElementCount::getFixed(1)), ScalarVF);
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
computeCost(getBestPlanFor(ElementCount::getFixed(1)), ScalarVF);
computeCost(getBestPlanFor(ScalarVF), ScalarVF);

?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks!

VectorizationFactor BestFactor(ScalarVF, ScalarCost, ScalarCost);

bool ForceVectorization = Hints.getForce() == LoopVectorizeHints::FK_Enabled;
if (ForceVectorization) {
// Ignore scalar width, because the user explicitly wants vectorization.
// Initialize cost to max so that VF = 2 is, at least, chosen during cost
// evaluation.
BestFactor.Cost = InstructionCost::getMax();
}

for (auto &P : VPlans) {
for (ElementCount VF : P->vectorFactors()) {
if (VF.isScalar())
continue;
InstructionCost Cost = computeCost(*P, VF);
VectorizationFactor CurrentFactor(VF, Cost, ScalarCost);
if (isMoreProfitable(CurrentFactor, BestFactor)) {
BestFactor = CurrentFactor;
BestPlan = &*P;
}
}
}
BestPlan->setVF(BestFactor.Width);
return *BestPlan;
}

VPlan &LoopVectorizationPlanner::getBestPlanFor(ElementCount VF) const {
assert(count_if(VPlans,
[VF](const VPlanPtr &Plan) { return Plan->hasVF(VF); }) ==
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -10253,8 +10370,15 @@ bool LoopVectorizePass::processLoop(Loop *L) {
VF.MinProfitableTripCount, IC, &LVL, &CM, BFI,
PSI, Checks);

VPlan &BestPlan = LVP.getBestPlanFor(VF.Width);
LVP.executePlan(VF.Width, IC, BestPlan, LB, DT, false);
VPlan &BestPlan = LVP.getBestPlan();
assert(size(BestPlan.vectorFactors()) == 1 &&
"Plan should have a single VF");
ElementCount Width = *BestPlan.vectorFactors().begin();
LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "VF picked by VPlan cost model: " << Width
<< "\n");
assert(VF.Width == Width &&
"VPlan cost model and legacy cost model disagreed");
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth adding a comment in LVP::selectVectorizationFactor(), which selects the best VF based on legacy cost model, that it is destined to retire once computing the best VF based on VPlan costs is confirmed to agree and stabilizes.

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 a comment to both the call site and header for selectVectorizationFactor; with this patch, it is only used to cross-check the VPlan-based one, but the VPlan-based one will pick the plan to execute via getBestPlan in the main code vector code path (epilogue vectorization code path is not updated yet)

LVP.executePlan(Width, IC, BestPlan, LB, DT, false);
++LoopsVectorized;

// Add metadata to disable runtime unrolling a scalar loop when there
Expand Down
103 changes: 103 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/VPlan.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ using namespace llvm::VPlanPatternMatch;
namespace llvm {
extern cl::opt<bool> EnableVPlanNativePath;
}
extern cl::opt<unsigned> ForceTargetInstructionCost;

#define DEBUG_TYPE "vplan"

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -730,6 +731,89 @@ void VPRegionBlock::execute(VPTransformState *State) {
State->Instance.reset();
}

static InstructionCost computeCostForRecipe(VPRecipeBase *R, ElementCount VF,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can this be folded into Recipe::computeCost()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think so, as VPRecipeBase::computeCost has the generic implementation to fall back on the legacy CM. Subclasses implementing it would all need to invoke computeCostForRecipe, unless there's an elegant alternative?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A public non-virtual VPRecipeBase::cost() or getCost() method can take care of skipping, forcing, or otherwise computing the cost of a recipe. The latter case can invoke a protected virtual VPRecipeBase::computeCost() which actually implements cost computations, with CM of underlying Instructions as default. Another naming option: computeCost() and computeCostImpl(). Otherwise the distinction between computeCostForRecipe() and Recipe::computeCost() needs to be explained.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved as suggested, thanks!

VPCostContext &Ctx) {
if (auto *S = dyn_cast<VPSingleDefRecipe>(R)) {
auto *UI = dyn_cast_or_null<Instruction>(S->getUnderlyingValue());
if (UI && Ctx.skipCostComputation(UI))
return 0;
}

InstructionCost RecipeCost = R->computeCost(VF, Ctx);
if (ForceTargetInstructionCost.getNumOccurrences() > 0 &&
RecipeCost.isValid())
RecipeCost = InstructionCost(ForceTargetInstructionCost);

LLVM_DEBUG({
dbgs() << "Cost of " << RecipeCost << " for VF " << VF << ": ";
R->dump();
});
return RecipeCost;
}

InstructionCost VPBasicBlock::computeCost(ElementCount VF, VPCostContext &Ctx) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should VPlan and VPBlockBase have cost() instead of computeCost() to align with VPRecipeBase, complementing their mutual execute()?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks!

InstructionCost Cost = 0;
for (VPRecipeBase &R : *this)
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
for (VPRecipeBase &R : *this)
for (VPRecipeBase &R : Recipes)

Cost += computeCostForRecipe(&R, VF, Ctx);
return Cost;
}

InstructionCost VPRegionBlock::computeCost(ElementCount VF,
VPCostContext &Ctx) {
InstructionCost Cost = 0;
if (!isReplicator()) {
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
InstructionCost Cost = 0;
if (!isReplicator()) {
if (!isReplicator()) {
InstructionCost Cost = 0;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!

for (VPBlockBase *Block : vp_depth_first_shallow(getEntry()))
Cost += Block->computeCost(VF, Ctx);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Add cost of backedge 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.

Done, thanks!

return Cost;
}

// Compute the cost of a replicate region. Replicating isn't supported for
// scalable vectors, return an invalid cost for them.
if (VF.isScalable())
return InstructionCost::getInvalid();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If it isn't supported, should it be (prevented and) asserted, instead of built and cost invalidated?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, but at the moment this is done via the cost. Might be worth to adjust (e.g. bail out during VPlan construction), but best done separately.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth leaving behind a TODO?

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!


// First compute the cost of the conditionally executed recipes, followed by
// account for the branching cost, except if the mask is a header mask or
// uniform condition.
using namespace llvm::VPlanPatternMatch;
VPBasicBlock *Then = cast<VPBasicBlock>(getEntry()->getSuccessors()[0]);
for (VPRecipeBase &R : *Then)
Cost += computeCostForRecipe(&R, VF, Ctx);

// Note the cost estimates below closely match the current legacy cost model.
auto *BOM = cast<VPBranchOnMaskRecipe>(&getEntryBasicBlock()->front());
VPValue *Cond = BOM->getOperand(0);

// Check if Cond is a uniform compare or a header mask and don't account for
// branching costs. A uniform condition correspondings to a single branch per
// VF, and the header mask will always be true except in the last iteration.
VPValue *Op;
bool IsHeaderMaskOrUniformCond =
vputils::isUniformBoolean(Cond) || isa<VPActiveLaneMaskPHIRecipe>(Cond) ||
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also worth capturing vputils::isHeaderMask(VPValue*, VPlan*)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks!

match(Cond, m_ActiveLaneMask(m_VPValue(), m_VPValue())) ||
(match(Cond, m_Binary<Instruction::ICmp>(m_VPValue(), m_VPValue(Op))) &&
Op == getPlan()->getOrCreateBackedgeTakenCount());
if (IsHeaderMaskOrUniformCond)
return Cost;
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
return Cost;
return ThenCost;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!


// For the scalar case, we may not always execute the original predicated
// block, Thus, scale the block's cost by the probability of executing it.
// blockNeedsPredication from Legal is used so as to not include all blocks in
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

blockNeedsPredication is no longer used here, which only checks if VF is scalar.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks

// tail folded loops.
if (VF.isScalar())
return Cost / 2;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note that getReciprocalPredBlockProb() should be used, which currently returns 2?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, required moving it to a header.


// Add the cost for branches around scalarized and predicated blocks.
TTI::TargetCostKind CostKind = TTI::TCK_RecipThroughput;
auto *Vec_i1Ty = VectorType::get(IntegerType::getInt1Ty(Ctx.Ctx), VF);
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: may be clearer to do

  auto FixedVF = VF.getFixedValue(); // Known to be non scalable.
  Cost += Ctx.TTI.getScalarizationOverhead(
              Vec_i1Ty, APInt::getAllOnes(FixedVF), /*Insert*/ false,
              /*Extract*/ true, CostKind);
  Cost += Ctx.TTI.getCFInstrCost(Instruction::Br, CostKind) * FixedVF;
  return Cost;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Updated, thanks!

return Cost +
Ctx.TTI.getScalarizationOverhead(
Vec_i1Ty, APInt::getAllOnes(VF.getFixedValue()),
/*Insert*/ false, /*Extract*/ true, CostKind) +
(Ctx.TTI.getCFInstrCost(Instruction::Br, CostKind) *
VF.getFixedValue());
}

#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
void VPRegionBlock::print(raw_ostream &O, const Twine &Indent,
VPSlotTracker &SlotTracker) const {
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -900,6 +984,13 @@ void VPlan::execute(VPTransformState *State) {
}
}

InstructionCost VPlan::computeCost(ElementCount VF, VPCostContext &Ctx) {
InstructionCost Cost = 0;
for (VPBlockBase *Block : vp_depth_first_shallow(getEntry()))
Cost += Block->computeCost(VF, Ctx);
return Cost;
}

#if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)
void VPlan::printLiveIns(raw_ostream &O) const {
VPSlotTracker SlotTracker(this);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1472,3 +1563,15 @@ VPValue *vputils::getOrCreateVPValueForSCEVExpr(VPlan &Plan, const SCEV *Expr,
Plan.addSCEVExpansion(Expr, Expanded);
return Expanded;
}

bool vputils::isUniformBoolean(VPValue *Cond) {
if (match(Cond, m_Not(m_VPValue())))
Cond = Cond->getDefiningRecipe()->getOperand(0);
auto *R = Cond->getDefiningRecipe();
if (!R)
return true;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Worth adding a TODO to match additional patterns preserving uniformity of booleans, e.g., AND/OR/etc.?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks!

return match(R, m_Binary<Instruction::ICmp>(m_VPValue(), m_VPValue())) &&
all_of(R->operands(), [](VPValue *Op) {
return vputils::isUniformAfterVectorization(Op);
Comment on lines +1531 to +1532
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit: may be simpler the check the two operands of ICmp directly.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done, thanks!

});
}
Loading
Loading