[LoopCacheAnalysis] Fix a type mismatch bug in cost calculation

[congzhe]

Summary

As reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb941857b40edd7f3f3a9ec2ec85a26db24739774#1100674, there is a loop cache analysis bug exposed by the recent loop interchange new cost model patch. In isConsecutive() from LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp, sometimes the SCEV variables Coeff and ElemSize may not match, e.g., when there is no target datalayout provided in an IR. The mismatch would cause SCEV failures when multiplying Coeff with ElemSize.

As discussed in the loopopt meeting, the fix in this patch is to extend the type of both Coeff and ElemSize to whichever is wider in those two variables. The IR reported in https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb941857b40edd7f3f3a9ec2ec85a26db24739774#1100674 is added in loop cache analysis tests.

As a clean-up, the Stride variable in computeRefCost() has been already computed in isConsecutive(), so I remove the duplicate calculations of Stride which also helps this patch to be more compact.

[congzhe]

Regarding Michael's question that whether SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend() is signed extension or unsigned extension: it is actually well handled in ScalarEvolution::getAnyExtendExpr() where it could do either signed or unsigned extension depending on the actual SCEV type of the value we want to extend. I'm wondering if it answers your question? @Meinersbur

[Meinersbur]

In D128877#3621209, @congzhe wrote:

Regarding Michael's question that whether SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend() is signed extension or unsigned extension: it is actually well handled in ScalarEvolution::getAnyExtendExpr() where it could do either signed or unsigned extension depending on the actual SCEV type of the value we want to extend. I'm wondering if it answers your question? @Meinersbur

Whether to use sext or zext can make a semantic difference. Say we have an element size of i16 4 and a stride of -1 (going backwards) in 8-bit precision. That represented as i8 255. zero-extension of that is i16 255, and multiplying both gives i16 1020 which should be -4 (i16 0xFFFC).

getNoopOrAnyExtend() seems to prefer zero-extension over sign-extension.

[congzhe]

In D128877#3622951, @Meinersbur wrote:

In D128877#3621209, @congzhe wrote:

Regarding Michael's question that whether SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend() is signed extension or unsigned extension: it is actually well handled in ScalarEvolution::getAnyExtendExpr() where it could do either signed or unsigned extension depending on the actual SCEV type of the value we want to extend. I'm wondering if it answers your question? @Meinersbur

Whether to use sext or zext can make a semantic difference. Say we have an element size of i16 4 and a stride of -1 (going backwards) in 8-bit precision. That represented as i8 255. zero-extension of that is i16 255, and multiplying both gives i16 1020 which should be -4 (i16 0xFFFC).

getNoopOrAnyExtend() seems to prefer zero-extension over sign-extension.

It looks like the case you mentioned has been handled correctly in ScalarEvolution::getAnyExtendExpr() (which is called from SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend()) by the following piece of code?

// Sign-extend negative constants.
if (const SCEVConstant *SC = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(Op))
  if (SC->getAPInt().isNegative())
    return getSignExtendExpr(Op, Ty);

[bjope]

Afaik getNoopOrAnyExtend() is defined as "If the type must be extended, it is extended with unspecified bits.". So you can't rely on it doing zero extend or sign extend. The extended bits are undefined.

That is probably OK in use-cases such as how getNoopOrAnyExtend is used in ScalarEvolutionExpander, when it is truncating the result from the add/mul expr that is using the extended size (i.e. the upper bits are of no interest anyway).
But I do not really see how the usage of getNoopOrAnyExtend() in LoopCacheAnalysis is safe in a similar manner. Those "undefined" bits seem to be significant both in the new Stride calculation in this patch, as well as in the already present code that for example is doing

Stride = SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(Stride, WiderType);
TripCount = SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(TripCount, WiderType);
const SCEV *Numerator = SE.getMulExpr(Stride, TripCount);
RefCost = SE.getUDivExpr(Numerator, CacheLineSize);

Or am I missing something?

[Meinersbur]

@bjope I think you are correct. This is what the source code documentation says:

/// Return a SCEV corresponding to a conversion of the input value to the
/// specified type. If the type must be extended, it is extended with
/// unspecified bits. The conversion must not be narrowing.
const SCEV *getNoopOrAnyExtend(const SCEV *V, Type *Ty);

@congzhe getAnyExtendExpr has some heuristics for which kind of extension is better for some definition of "better", but that doesn't mean it will find the correct one every time. The test case you added contains zext. Shouldn't that somehow indicate that zext is to be used in this case?

[congzhe]

Hi folks, my apologies for the delay, and thanks for the input. I do agree with you that we need to treat this scev expansion more carefully, although for some places where getNoopOrAnyExtend() is called (like the piece of code that Bjorn posted above), both Stride and TripCount are positive so it might be straightforward to use SE.getNoopOrZeroExtend(), or maybe just SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend() as how it is used now.

Motivated by @Meinersbur Michael's comment that we might just do zext for the test case in this patch, looking into the function isConsecutive(), I'm thinking we can change this patch to the following code in order to handle the expansions more carefully. What do you think?

const SCEV *Coeff = getLastCoefficient();
const SCEV *ElemSize = Sizes.back();
Type *WiderType = SE.getWiderType(Coeff->getType(), ElemSize->getType());
Stride = SE.getMulExpr(SE.isKnownNegative(Coeff)
                           ? SE.getNoopOrSignExtend(Coeff, WiderType)
                           : SE.getNoopOrZeroExtend(Coeff, WiderType),
                       SE.isKnownNegative(ElemSize)
                           ? SE.getNoopOrSignExtend(ElemSize, WiderType)
                           : SE.getNoopOrZeroExtend(ElemSize, WiderType));

As a side note, in order not to block @bjope Bjorn's work, I'd like to mention that if we add a target datalayout line to the IR that crashes (https://reviews.llvm.org/rGb941857b40edd7f3f3a9ec2ec85a26db24739774#1100674), it would work fine. Something like target datalayout = "e-m:e-p:32:32-i64:64-v128:64:128-a:0:32-n32-S64" is sufficient. I mentioned it in the summary of this patch but just in case if you missed it. Hope this could provide a workaround for now.

[Meinersbur]

I don't think we can rely on isKnownNegative

1. The SCEV might be sometimes negative, sometime positive, depending on some runtime value (e.g. stride is multiplied by a function argument). This is, if isKnownPositive and isKnownNegative both return false, we'd need to bail out.
2. isKnownNegative already assumes that the integer is signed. With that assumption, sext would always be correct (which is equivalent to zext for positive integers)

[congzhe]

Updated the patch according to the discussion in the loopopt meeting. @Meinersbur I would appreciate it if you could take a second look, thanks a lot!

[Meinersbur]

llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp

477–478

Could you make it make more explicit that this is known-incorrect for some cases?
Suggestion:

// FIXME: This assumes that all values are signed integers which may be incorrect in unusual codes and incorrectly use sext instead of zext.
// for (uint32_t i = 256; i < 512; ++i) {
//   uint8_t trunc = i;
//   A[i] = 42;
// }
// This consecutively iterates twice over A. If `trunc` is sign-extended, we would conclude that this may iterate backwards over the array.
// However, LoopCacheAnalysis is heuristic anyway and transformations must not result in wrong optimizations if the heuristic was incorrect.

[congzhe]

Thanks Michael for your suggestion, I've updated the patch accordingly.

I'm just wondering if you meant A[trunc]=42 in your example? Also I'm a bit confused if the loop actually iterates over A twice? It looks to me the variable i loops from 0x0100 to 0x01FF, hence trunc loops from A[0x00] to A[0xFF] so seems like it just iterates once?

[Meinersbur]

In D128877#3660863, @congzhe wrote:

Thanks Michael for your suggestion, I've updated the patch accordingly.

I'm just wondering if you meant A[trunc]=42 in your example? Also I'm a bit confused if the loop actually iterates over A twice? It looks to me the variable i loops from 0x0100 to 0x01FF, hence trunc loops from A[0x00] to A[0xFF] so seems like it just iterates once?

Both you remarks are correct. You already fixed the first. I started with a loop for (uint32_t i = 0; i < 512; ++i) which would iterate twice over the array (once forward, once backward) but then found it overcomplicates things but forgot to change it everywhere. Could you fix it either way? After that, LGTM.

llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.h

bool tryDelinearizeFixedSize(const SCEV *AccessFn,
                                SmallVectorImpl<const SCEV *> &Subscripts);
 
   /// Return true if the index reference is invariant with respect to loop \p L.
   bool isLoopInvariant(const Loop &L) const;
 
   /// Return true if the indexed reference is 'consecutive' in loop \p L.
   /// An indexed reference is 'consecutive' if the only coefficient that uses
   /// the loop induction variable is the rightmost one, and the access stride is
-  /// smaller than the cache line size \p CLS.
-  bool isConsecutive(const Loop &L, unsigned CLS) const;
+  /// smaller than the cache line size \p CLS. Provide a valid \p Stride value
+  /// if the indexed reference is 'consecutive'.
+  bool isConsecutive(const Loop &L, const SCEV *&Stride, unsigned CLS) const;
 
   /// Retrieve the index of the subscript corresponding to the given loop \p
   /// L. Return a zero-based positive index if the subscript index is
   /// succesfully located and a negative value otherwise. For example given the
   /// indexed reference 'A[i][2j+1][3k+2]', the call
   /// 'getSubscriptIndex(loop-k)' would return value 2.
   int getSubscriptIndex(const Loop &L) const;
 

llvm/lib/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis.cpp

if (isLoopInvariant(L)) {
     return 1;
   }
 
   const SCEV *TripCount = computeTripCount(L, *Sizes.back(), SE);
   assert(TripCount && "Expecting valid TripCount");
   LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs() << "TripCount=" << *TripCount << "\n");
 
   const SCEV *RefCost = nullptr;
-  if (isConsecutive(L, CLS)) {
+  const SCEV *Stride = nullptr;
+  if (isConsecutive(L, Stride, CLS)) {
     // If the indexed reference is 'consecutive' the cost is
     // (TripCount*Stride)/CLS.
-    const SCEV *Coeff = getLastCoefficient();
-    const SCEV *ElemSize = Sizes.back();
-    assert(Coeff->getType() == ElemSize->getType() &&
-           "Expecting the same type");
-    const SCEV *Stride = SE.getMulExpr(Coeff, ElemSize);
     Type *WiderType = SE.getWiderType(Stride->getType(), TripCount->getType());
     const SCEV *CacheLineSize = SE.getConstant(WiderType, CLS);
-    if (SE.isKnownNegative(Stride))
-      Stride = SE.getNegativeSCEV(Stride);
     Stride = SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(Stride, WiderType);
     TripCount = SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(TripCount, WiderType);
     const SCEV *Numerator = SE.getMulExpr(Stride, TripCount);
     RefCost = SE.getUDivExpr(Numerator, CacheLineSize);
 
     LLVM_DEBUG(dbgs().indent(4)
                << "Access is consecutive: RefCost=(TripCount*Stride)/CLS="
                << *RefCost << "\n");
bool IndexedReference::isLoopInvariant(const Loop &L) const {
   // the loop induction variable.
   bool allCoeffForLoopAreZero = all_of(Subscripts, [&](const SCEV *Subscript) {
     return isCoeffForLoopZeroOrInvariant(*Subscript, L);
   });
 
   return allCoeffForLoopAreZero;
 }
 
-bool IndexedReference::isConsecutive(const Loop &L, unsigned CLS) const {
+bool IndexedReference::isConsecutive(const Loop &L, const SCEV *&Stride,
+                                     unsigned CLS) const {
   // The indexed reference is 'consecutive' if the only coefficient that uses
   // the loop induction variable is the last one...
   const SCEV *LastSubscript = Subscripts.back();
   for (const SCEV *Subscript : Subscripts) {
     if (Subscript == LastSubscript)
       continue;
     if (!isCoeffForLoopZeroOrInvariant(*Subscript, L))
       return false;
   }
 
   // ...and the access stride is less than the cache line size.
   const SCEV *Coeff = getLastCoefficient();
   const SCEV *ElemSize = Sizes.back();
-  const SCEV *Stride = SE.getMulExpr(Coeff, ElemSize);
+  Type *WiderType = SE.getWiderType(Coeff->getType(), ElemSize->getType());
+  Stride = SE.getMulExpr(SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(Coeff, WiderType),
+                         SE.getNoopOrAnyExtend(ElemSize, WiderType));
   const SCEV *CacheLineSize = SE.getConstant(Stride->getType(), CLS);
 
   Stride = SE.isKnownNegative(Stride) ? SE.getNegativeSCEV(Stride) : Stride;
   return SE.isKnownPredicate(ICmpInst::ICMP_ULT, Stride, CacheLineSize);
 }
 
 int IndexedReference::getSubscriptIndex(const Loop &L) const {
   for (auto Idx : seq<int>(0, getNumSubscripts())) {

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/PowerPC/compute-cost.ll

-; RUN: opt < %s -passes='print<loop-cache-cost>' -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
+; RUN: opt < %s -opaque-pointers -passes='print<loop-cache-cost>' -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
 
 target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-n32:64"
 target triple = "powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu"
 
 ; Check IndexedReference::computeRefCost can handle type differences between
 ; Stride and TripCount
 
 ; CHECK: Loop 'for.cond' has cost = 64
for.body:                                         ; preds = %for.cond
   %inc = add nuw nsw i32 %i.0, 1
   br label %for.cond
 
 ; Exit blocks
 for.end:                                          ; preds = %for.cond
   ret void
 }
 
+; Check IndexedReference::computeRefCost can handle type differences between
+; Coeff and ElemSize.
+
+; CHECK: Loop 'for.cond' has cost = 100000000
+; CHECK: Loop 'for.cond1' has cost = 1000000
+; CHECK: Loop 'for.cond5' has cost = 30000
+
+@data = external dso_local global [2 x [4 x [18 x i32]]], align 1
+
+define dso_local void @handle_to_ptr_2(i1 %b0, i1 %b1, i1 %b2) {
+entry:
+  br label %for.cond
 
+for.cond:
+  %i.0 = phi i16 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc18, %for.inc17 ]
+  %idxprom = zext i16 %i.0 to i32
+  br i1 %b2, label %for.end19, label %for.cond1
+
+for.cond1:
+  %j.0 = phi i16 [ %inc15, %for.inc14 ], [ 0, %for.cond ]
+  br i1 %b1, label %for.inc17, label %for.cond5.preheader
+
+for.cond5.preheader:
+  %idxprom10 = zext i16 %j.0 to i32
+  br label %for.cond5
+
+for.cond5:
+  %k.0 = phi i16 [ %inc, %for.inc ], [ 0, %for.cond5.preheader ]
+  br i1 %b0, label %for.inc14, label %for.inc
+
+for.inc:
+  %idxprom12 = zext i16 %k.0 to i32
+  %arrayidx13 = getelementptr inbounds [2 x [4 x [18 x i32]]], ptr @data, i32 0, i32 %idxprom, i32 %idxprom10, i32 %idxprom12
+  store i32 7, ptr %arrayidx13, align 1
+  %inc = add nuw nsw i16 %k.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond5
+
+for.inc14:
+  %inc15 = add nuw nsw i16 %j.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond1
+
+for.inc17:
+  %inc18 = add nuw nsw i16 %i.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond
+
+for.end19:
+  ret void
+}
 
 ; Check IndexedReference::computeRefCost can handle negative stride
 
 ; CHECK: Loop 'for.neg.cond' has cost = 64
 
 define void @handle_to_ptr_neg_stride(%struct._Handleitem** %blocks) {
 ; Preheader:
 entry:

llvm/test/Analysis/LoopCacheAnalysis/compute-cost.ll

for.body:                                         ; preds = %for.cond
   %inc = add nuw nsw i32 %i.0, 1
   br label %for.cond
 
 ; Exit blocks
 for.end:                                          ; preds = %for.cond
   ret void
 }
 
+; Check IndexedReference::computeRefCost can handle type differences between
+; Coeff and ElemSize.
+
+; SMALLER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond' has cost = 100000000
+; SMALLER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond1' has cost = 1000000
+; SMALLER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond5' has cost = 120000
+; LARGER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond' has cost = 100000000
+; LARGER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond1' has cost = 1000000
+; LARGER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.cond5' has cost = 10000
+@data = external dso_local global [2 x [4 x [18 x i32]]], align 1
+
+define dso_local void @handle_to_ptr_2(i1 %b0, i1 %b1, i1 %b2) {
+entry:
+  br label %for.cond
 
+for.cond:
+  %i.0 = phi i16 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc18, %for.inc17 ]
+  %idxprom = zext i16 %i.0 to i32
+  br i1 %b2, label %for.end19, label %for.cond1
+
+for.cond1:
+  %j.0 = phi i16 [ %inc15, %for.inc14 ], [ 0, %for.cond ]
+  br i1 %b1, label %for.inc17, label %for.cond5.preheader
+
+for.cond5.preheader:
+  %idxprom10 = zext i16 %j.0 to i32
+  br label %for.cond5
+
+for.cond5:
+  %k.0 = phi i16 [ %inc, %for.inc ], [ 0, %for.cond5.preheader ]
+  br i1 %b0, label %for.inc14, label %for.inc
+
+for.inc:
+  %idxprom12 = zext i16 %k.0 to i32
+  %arrayidx13 = getelementptr inbounds [2 x [4 x [18 x i32]]], ptr @data, i32 0, i32 %idxprom, i32 %idxprom10, i32 %idxprom12
+  store i32 7, ptr %arrayidx13, align 1
+  %inc = add nuw nsw i16 %k.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond5
+
+for.inc14:
+  %inc15 = add nuw nsw i16 %j.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond1
+
+for.inc17:
+  %inc18 = add nuw nsw i16 %i.0, 1
+  br label %for.cond
+
+for.end19:
+  ret void
+}
 
 ; Check IndexedReference::computeRefCost can handle negative stride
 
 ; SMALLER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.neg.cond' has cost = 256
 ; LARGER-CACHELINE: Loop 'for.neg.cond' has cost = 32
 define void @handle_to_ptr_neg_stride(%struct._Handleitem** %blocks) {
 ; Preheader:
 entry: