-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
[VPlan] Fold safe divisors into VP intrinsics with EVL #148828
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
Open
lukel97
wants to merge
1
commit into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
lukel97:loop-vectorize/optimize-safe-divisors-evl
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+52
−8
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we have an assert that all users of the op are also predicated?
From the explanation, it's not entirely clear how this is related to EVL-based IV. Isn't the requirement that both the udiv and all its users use the same EVL?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The users of the op aren't predicated in the sense that they're not converted to VPWidenIntrinsic VP intrinsic recipes, nor are they predicated in terms of
LoopVectorizationCostModel::isPredicatedInst
.I guess the point this comment is trying to clarify is that there's an invariant in tail folding that for any recipe, none of the inactive lanes/lanes past EVL will be used, which is what this transform relies on to be correct.
I think this is similar to how we can't use regular ExtractLastElement with tail folding, and we need #149042 to make sure we only access the last active lane.
The EVL-based IV bit stems from the fact that we can't fold for e.g.
udiv x, (vp.merge allones, y, 1, foo) -> vp.udiv x, y, allones, foo
because we don't know that the lanes past foo won't be read. But we can guarantee that for foo=EVL-based IV.