Arnold Schwaighofer 65457b679a Costmodel: Add support for horizontal vector reductions
Upcoming SLP vectorization improvements will want to be able to estimate costs
of horizontal reductions. Add infrastructure to support this.

We model reductions as a series of (shufflevector,add) tuples ultimately
followed by an extractelement. For example, for an add-reduction of <4 x float>
we could generate the following sequence:

 (v0, v1, v2, v3)
   \   \  /  /
     \  \  /
       +  +

 (v0+v2, v1+v3, undef, undef)
    \      /
 ((v0+v2) + (v1+v3), undef, undef)

 %rdx.shuf = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
                           <4 x i32> <i32 2, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
 %bin.rdx = fadd <4 x float> %rdx, %rdx.shuf
 %rdx.shuf7 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx, <4 x float> undef,
                          <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
 %bin.rdx8 = fadd <4 x float> %bin.rdx, %rdx.shuf7
 %r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx8, i32 0

This commit adds a cost model interface "getReductionCost(Opcode, Ty, Pairwise)"
that will allow clients to ask for the cost of such a reduction (as backends
might generate more efficient code than the cost of the individual instructions
summed up). This interface is excercised by the CostModel analysis pass which
looks for reduction patterns like the one above - starting at extractelements -
and if it sees a matching sequence will call the cost model interface.

We will also support a second form of pairwise reduction that is well supported
on common architectures (haddps, vpadd, faddp).

 (v0, v1, v2, v3)
  \   /    \  /
 (v0+v1, v2+v3, undef, undef)
    \     /
 ((v0+v1)+(v2+v3), undef, undef, undef)

  %rdx.shuf.0.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 2 , i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %rdx.shuf.0.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %rdx, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 3, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %bin.rdx.0 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.0.0, %rdx.shuf.0.1
  %rdx.shuf.1.0 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %rdx.shuf.1.1 = shufflevector <4 x float> %bin.rdx.0, <4 x float> undef,
        <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 undef, i32 undef, i32 undef>
  %bin.rdx.1 = fadd <4 x float> %rdx.shuf.1.0, %rdx.shuf.1.1
  %r = extractelement <4 x float> %bin.rdx.1, i32 0

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@190876 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
2013-09-17 18:06:50 +00:00
..
2013-08-24 14:16:00 +00:00
2013-08-20 23:04:15 +00:00

Analysis Opportunities:

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In test/Transforms/LoopStrengthReduce/quadradic-exit-value.ll, the
ScalarEvolution expression for %r is this:

  {1,+,3,+,2}<loop>

Outside the loop, this could be evaluated simply as (%n * %n), however
ScalarEvolution currently evaluates it as

  (-2 + (2 * (trunc i65 (((zext i64 (-2 + %n) to i65) * (zext i64 (-1 + %n) to i65)) /u 2) to i64)) + (3 * %n))

In addition to being much more complicated, it involves i65 arithmetic,
which is very inefficient when expanded into code.

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//

In formatValue in test/CodeGen/X86/lsr-delayed-fold.ll,

ScalarEvolution is forming this expression:

((trunc i64 (-1 * %arg5) to i32) + (trunc i64 %arg5 to i32) + (-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32)))

This could be folded to

(-1 * (trunc i64 undef to i32))

//===---------------------------------------------------------------------===//