In revision rL278321, ExecutionDepsFix learned how to pick a better
register for undef register reads, e.g. for instructions such as
vcvtsi2sdq. While this revision improved performance on a good number
of our benchmarks, it unfortunately also caused significant regressions
(up to 3x) on others. This regression turned out to be caused by loops
such as:
PH -> A -> B (xmm<Undef> -> xmm<Def>) -> C -> D -> EXIT
^ |
+----------------------------------+In the previous version of the clearance calculation, we would visit
the blocks in order, remembering for each whether there were any
incoming backedges from blocks that we hadn't processed yet and if
so queuing up the block to be re-processed. However, for loop structures
such as the above, this is clearly insufficient, since the block B
does not have any unknown backedges, so we do not see the false
dependency from the previous interation's Def of xmm registers in B.
To fix this, we need to consider all blocks that are part of the loop
and reprocess them one the correct clearance values are known. As
an optimization, we also want to avoid reprocessing any later blocks
that are not part of the loop.
In summary, the iteration order is as follows:
Before: PH A B C D A'
Corrected (Naive): PH A B C D A' B' C' D'
Corrected (w/ optimization): PH A B C A' B' C' D
To facilitate this optimization we introduce two new counters for each
basic block. The first counts how many of it's predecssors have
completed primary processing. The second counts how many of its
predecessors have completed all processing (we will call such a block
*done*. Now, the criteria to reprocess a block is as follows:
- All Predecessors have completed primary processing
- For x the number of predecessors that have completed primary processing *at the time of primary processing of this block*, the number of predecessors that are done has reached x.
The intuition behind this criterion is as follows:
We need to perform primary processing on all predecessors in order to
find out any direct defs in those predecessors. When predecessors are
done, we also know that we have information about indirect defs (e.g.
in block B though that were inherited through B->C->A->B). However,
we can't wait for all predecessors to be done, since that would
cause cyclic dependencies. However, it is guaranteed that all those
predecessors that are prior to us in reverse postorder will be done
before us. Since we iterate of the basic blocks in reverse postorder,
the number x above, is precisely the count of the number of predecessors
prior to us in reverse postorder.
What is the limit on the depth of the stack?
We're seeing a crash because of stack explosion here, so I fear it can grow with the CFG (which wouldn't seem reasonable to me). Can you comment on this?