[PATCH v7] tree-ssa-sink: Improve code sinking pass

[Ajit Agarwal <aagarwa1@linux.ibm.com>]

Hello All:

This patch improves code sinking pass to sink statements before call to reduce
register pressure.
Review comments are incorporated.

For example :

void bar();
int j;
void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
{
  int l;
  l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
  if (a != 5)
    {
      bar();
      j = l;
    }
}

Code Sinking does the following:

void bar();
int j;
void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
{
  int l;
  
  if (a != 5)
    {
      l = a + b + c + d +e + f;     
      bar();
      j = l;
    }
}

Bootstrapped regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu.

Thanks & Regards
Ajit


tree-ssa-sink: Improve code sinking pass

Currently, code sinking will sink code after function calls.  This increases
register pressure for callee-saved registers.  The following patch improves
code sinking by placing the sunk code before calls in the use block or in
the immediate dominator of the use blocks.

2023-06-01  Ajit Kumar Agarwal  <aagarwa1@linux.ibm.com>

gcc/ChangeLog:

	PR tree-optimization/81953
	* tree-ssa-sink.cc (statement_sink_location): Move statements before
	calls.
	(def_use_same_block): New function.
	(select_best_block): Add heuristics to select the best blocks in the
	immediate post dominator.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

	PR tree-optimization/81953
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c: New testcase.
	* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c: New testcase.
---
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c | 15 ++++
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c | 19 +++++
 gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc                        | 79 ++++++++++++++-------
 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..d3b79ca5803
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
+void bar();
+int j;
+void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
+{
+  int l;
+  l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
+  if (a != 5)
+    {
+      bar();
+      j = l;
+    }
+}
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {l_12\s+=\s+_4\s+\+\s+f_11\(D\);\n\s+bar\s+\(\)} sink1 } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..84e7938c54f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
+void bar();
+int j, x;
+void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
+{
+  int l;
+  l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
+  if (a != 5)
+    {
+      bar();
+      if (b != 3)
+        x = 3;
+      else
+        x = 5;
+      j = l;
+    }
+}
+/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump {l_13\s+=\s+_4\s+\+\s+f_12\(D\);\n\s+bar\s+\(\)} sink1 } } */
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
index b1ba7a2ad6c..113c89d0967 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
@@ -171,9 +171,28 @@ nearest_common_dominator_of_uses (def_operand_p def_p, bool *debug_stmts)
   return commondom;
 }
 
+/* Return TRUE if immediate defs of STMT and STMT are in same
+ * block, FALSE otherwise.  */
+
+static bool
+def_use_same_block (gimple *stmt)
+{
+  def_operand_p def;
+  ssa_op_iter iter;
+
+  FOR_EACH_SSA_DEF_OPERAND (def, stmt, iter, SSA_OP_DEF)
+    {
+      gimple *def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (DEF_FROM_PTR (def));
+      if ((gimple_bb (def_stmt) == gimple_bb (stmt)))
+	return true;
+     }
+  return false;
+}
+
 /* Given EARLY_BB and LATE_BB, two blocks in a path through the dominator
    tree, return the best basic block between them (inclusive) to place
-   statements.
+   statements. The best basic block should be an immediate dominator of
+   best basic block if the use stmt is after the call.
 
    We want the most control dependent block in the shallowest loop nest.
 
@@ -190,11 +209,22 @@ nearest_common_dominator_of_uses (def_operand_p def_p, bool *debug_stmts)
 static basic_block
 select_best_block (basic_block early_bb,
 		   basic_block late_bb,
-		   gimple *stmt)
+		   gimple *stmt,
+		   gimple *use)
 {
   basic_block best_bb = late_bb;
   basic_block temp_bb = late_bb;
   int threshold;
+  /* Get the sinking threshold.  If the statement to be moved has memory
+     operands, then increase the threshold by 7% as those are even more
+     profitable to avoid, clamping at 100%.  */
+  threshold = param_sink_frequency_threshold;
+  if (gimple_vuse (stmt) || gimple_vdef (stmt))
+    {
+      threshold += 7;
+      if (threshold > 100)
+	threshold = 100;
+    }
 
   while (temp_bb != early_bb)
     {
@@ -203,34 +233,33 @@ select_best_block (basic_block early_bb,
       if (bb_loop_depth (temp_bb) < bb_loop_depth (best_bb))
 	best_bb = temp_bb;
 
+      /* Placing a statement before a setjmp-like function would be invalid
+	 (it cannot be reevaluated when execution follows an abnormal edge).
+	 If we selected a block with abnormal predecessors, just punt.  */
+      if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (temp_bb))
+	return early_bb;
+
+      /* if we have temp_bb post dominated by use block and def
+	 and use are not in same block then immediate dominator
+	 would be our best block.  */
+      if (use
+	  && bb_loop_depth(temp_bb) == bb_loop_depth (early_bb)
+	  && !(temp_bb->count * 100 >= early_bb->count * threshold)
+	  && dominated_by_p (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, temp_bb, gimple_bb (use))
+	  && !def_use_same_block (use))
+	best_bb = temp_bb;
+
       /* Walk up the dominator tree, hopefully we'll find a shallower
  	 loop nest.  */
       temp_bb = get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, temp_bb);
     }
 
-  /* Placing a statement before a setjmp-like function would be invalid
-     (it cannot be reevaluated when execution follows an abnormal edge).
-     If we selected a block with abnormal predecessors, just punt.  */
-  if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (best_bb))
-    return early_bb;
-
   /* If we found a shallower loop nest, then we always consider that
      a win.  This will always give us the most control dependent block
      within that loop nest.  */
   if (bb_loop_depth (best_bb) < bb_loop_depth (early_bb))
     return best_bb;
 
-  /* Get the sinking threshold.  If the statement to be moved has memory
-     operands, then increase the threshold by 7% as those are even more
-     profitable to avoid, clamping at 100%.  */
-  threshold = param_sink_frequency_threshold;
-  if (gimple_vuse (stmt) || gimple_vdef (stmt))
-    {
-      threshold += 7;
-      if (threshold > 100)
-	threshold = 100;
-    }
-
   /* If BEST_BB is at the same nesting level, then require it to have
      significantly lower execution frequency to avoid gratuitous movement.  */
   if (bb_loop_depth (best_bb) == bb_loop_depth (early_bb)
@@ -439,7 +468,7 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block frombb,
       if (!dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, commondom, frombb))
 	return false;
 
-      commondom = select_best_block (frombb, commondom, stmt);
+      commondom = select_best_block (frombb, commondom, stmt, NULL);
 
       if (commondom == frombb)
 	return false;	
@@ -456,19 +485,17 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block frombb,
 	    continue;
 	  break;
 	}
+
       use = USE_STMT (one_use);
 
       if (gimple_code (use) != GIMPLE_PHI)
 	{
-	  sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, gimple_bb (use), stmt);
+	  sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, gimple_bb (use), stmt, use);
 
 	  if (sinkbb == frombb)
 	    return false;
 
-	  if (sinkbb == gimple_bb (use))
-	    *togsi = gsi_for_stmt (use);
-	  else
-	    *togsi = gsi_after_labels (sinkbb);
+	  *togsi = gsi_after_labels (sinkbb);
 
 	  return true;
 	}
@@ -480,7 +507,7 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block frombb,
   if (!sinkbb)
     return false;
   
-  sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, sinkbb, stmt);
+  sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, sinkbb, stmt, NULL);
   if (!sinkbb || sinkbb == frombb)
     return false;
 
-- 
2.39.3