[MBP] Fix a really horrible bug in MachineBlockPlacement, but behind

a flag for now.

First off, thanks to Daniel Jasper for really pointing out the issue
here. It's been here forever (at least, I think it was there when
I first wrote this code) without getting really noticed or fixed.

The key problem is what happens when two reasonably common patterns
happen at the same time: we outline multiple cold regions of code, and
those regions in turn have diamonds or other CFGs for which we can't
just topologically lay them out. Consider some C code that looks like:

  if (a1()) { if (b1()) c1(); else d1(); f1(); }
  if (a2()) { if (b2()) c2(); else d2(); f2(); }
  done();

Now consider the case where a1() and a2() are unlikely to be true. In
that case, we might lay out the first part of the function like:

  a1, a2, done;

And then we will be out of successors in which to build the chain. We go
to find the best block to continue the chain with, which is perfectly
reasonable here, and find "b1" let's say. Laying out successors gets us
to:

  a1, a2, done; b1, c1;

At this point, we will refuse to lay out the successor to c1 (f1)
because there are still un-placed predecessors of f1 and we want to try
to preserve the CFG structure. So we go get the next best block, d1.

... wait for it ...

Except that the next best block *isn't* d1. It is b2! d1 is waaay down
inside these conditionals. It is much less important than b2. Except
that this is exactly what we didn't want. If we keep going we get the
entire set of the rest of the CFG *interleaved*!!!

  a1, a2, done; b1, c1; b2, c2; d1, f1; d2, f2;

So we clearly need a better strategy here. =] My current favorite
strategy is to actually try to place the block whose predecessor is
closest. This very simply ensures that we unwind these kinds of CFGs the
way that is natural and fitting, and should minimize the number of cache
lines instructions are spread across.

It also happens to be *dead simple*. It's like the datastructure was
specifically set up for this use case or something. We only push blocks
onto the work list when the last predecessor for them is placed into the
chain. So the back of the worklist *is* the nearest next block.

Unfortunately, a change like this is going to cause *soooo* many
benchmarks to swing wildly. So for now I'm adding this under a flag so
that we and others can validate that this is fixing the problems
described, that it seems possible to enable, and hopefully that it fixes
more of our problems long term.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@231238 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

lib/CodeGen/MachineBlockPlacement.cpp

@@ -68,6 +68,13 @@ ExitBlockBias("block-placement-exit-block-bias",
                        "over the original exit to be considered the new exit."),
               cl::init(0), cl::Hidden);
 
+static cl::opt<bool> PlaceLastSuccessor(
+    "place-last-successor",
+    cl::desc("When selecting a non-successor block, choose the last block to "
+             "have been a successor. This represents the block whose "
+             "predecessor was most recently placed."),
+    cl::init(false), cl::Hidden);
+
 static cl::opt<bool> OutlineOptionalBranches(
     "outline-optional-branches",
     cl::desc("Put completely optional branches, i.e. branches with a common "
@@ -443,6 +450,25 @@ MachineBasicBlock *MachineBlockPlacement::selectBestSuccessor(
 MachineBasicBlock *MachineBlockPlacement::selectBestCandidateBlock(
     BlockChain &Chain, SmallVectorImpl<MachineBasicBlock *> &WorkList,
     const BlockFilterSet *BlockFilter) {
+  if (PlaceLastSuccessor) {
+    // If we're just placing the last successor as the best candidate, the
+    // logic is super simple. We skip the already placed entries on the
+    // worklist and return the most recently added entry that isn't placed.
+    while (!WorkList.empty()) {
+      MachineBasicBlock *SuccBB = WorkList.pop_back_val();
+      BlockChain &SuccChain = *BlockToChain.lookup(SuccBB);
+      if (&SuccChain == &Chain) {
+        DEBUG(dbgs() << "    " << getBlockName(SuccBB)
+                     << " -> Already merged!\n");
+        continue;
+      }
+      assert(SuccChain.LoopPredecessors == 0 && "Found CFG-violating block");
+      return SuccBB;
+    }
+
+    return nullptr;
+  }
+
   // Once we need to walk the worklist looking for a candidate, cleanup the
   // worklist of already placed entries.
   // FIXME: If this shows up on profiles, it could be folded (at the cost of

test/CodeGen/X86/block-placement.ll

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-linux -pre-RA-sched=source < %s | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-linux -place-last-successor -pre-RA-sched=source < %s | FileCheck %s
 
 declare void @error(i32 %i, i32 %a, i32 %b)
 
@@ -17,11 +17,11 @@ define i32 @test_ifchains(i32 %i, i32* %a, i32 %b) {
 ; CHECK: %else4
 ; CHECK-NOT: .align
 ; CHECK: %exit
-; CHECK: %then1
-; CHECK: %then2
-; CHECK: %then3
-; CHECK: %then4
 ; CHECK: %then5
+; CHECK: %then4
+; CHECK: %then3
+; CHECK: %then2
+; CHECK: %then1
 
 entry:
   %gep1 = getelementptr i32, i32* %a, i32 1
@@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ define i32 @test_loop_cold_blocks(i32 %i, i32* %a) {
 ; CHECK-LABEL: test_loop_cold_blocks:
 ; CHECK: %entry
 ; CHECK-NOT: .align
-; CHECK: %unlikely1
-; CHECK-NOT: .align
 ; CHECK: %unlikely2
+; CHECK-NOT: .align
+; CHECK: %unlikely1
 ; CHECK: .align
 ; CHECK: %body1
 ; CHECK: %body2
@@ -135,9 +135,9 @@ define i32 @test_loop_early_exits(i32 %i, i32* %a) {
 ; CHECK: %body3
 ; CHECK: %body4
 ; CHECK: %exit
-; CHECK: %bail1
-; CHECK: %bail2
 ; CHECK: %bail3
+; CHECK: %bail2
+; CHECK: %bail1
 
 entry:
   br label %body1
@@ -1083,3 +1083,87 @@ exit:
   %ret = phi i32 [ %val1, %then ], [ %val2, %else ]
   ret i32 %ret
 }
+
+define void @test_outlined() {
+; This test ends up with diamond control flow in outlined optional regions.
+; These diamonds should still be locally cohensive even when out-of-line due to
+; being cold.
+; CHECK-LABEL: test_outlined:
+; CHECK: %a1
+; CHECK: %a2
+; CHECK: %done
+; CHECK: %b2
+; CHECK: %c2
+; CHECK: %d2
+; CHECK: %f2
+; CHECK: %b1
+; CHECK: %c1
+; CHECK: %d1
+; CHECK: %f1
+
+a1:
+  %call.a1 = call i1 @a1()
+  br i1 %call.a1, label %b1, label %a2, !prof !0
+
+b1:
+  %call.b1 = call i1 @b1()
+  br i1 %call.b1, label %c1, label %d1
+
+c1:
+  call void @c1()
+  br label %f1
+
+d1:
+  call void @d1()
+  br label %f1
+
+f1:
+  call void @f1()
+  br label %a2
+
+a2:
+  %call.a2 = call i1 @a2()
+  br i1 %call.a2, label %b2, label %done, !prof !0
+
+b2:
+  %call.b2 = call i1 @b2()
+  br i1 %call.b2, label %c2, label %d2
+
+c2:
+  call void @c2()
+  br label %f2
+
+d2:
+  call void @d2()
+  br label %f2
+
+f2:
+  call void @f2()
+  br label %done
+
+done:
+  call void @done()
+  ret void
+}
+
+declare i1 @a1()
+
+declare i1 @b1()
+
+declare void @c1()
+
+declare void @d1()
+
+declare void @f1()
+
+declare i1 @a2()
+
+declare i1 @b2()
+
+declare void @c2()
+
+declare void @d2()
+
+declare void @f2()
+
+declare void @done()