[MLIR][ANALYSIS] Add liveness analysis utility
This commit adds a utility to implement liveness analysis using the sparse backward data-flow analysis framework. Theoretically, liveness analysis assigns liveness to each (value, program point) pair in the program and it is thus a dense analysis. However, since values are immutable in MLIR, a sparse analysis, which will assign liveness to each value in the program, suffices here. Liveness analysis has many applications. It can be used to avoid the computation of extraneous operations that have no effect on the memory or the final output of a program. It can also be used to optimize register allocation. Both of these applications help achieve one very important goal: reducing runtime. A value is considered "live" iff it: (1) has memory effects OR (2) is returned by a public function OR (3) is used to compute a value of type (1) or (2). It is also to be noted that a value could be of multiple types (1/2/3) at the same time. A value "has memory effects" iff it: (1.a) is an operand of an op with memory effects OR (1.b) is a non-forwarded branch operand and a block where its op could take the control has an op with memory effects. A value `A` is said to be "used to compute" value `B` iff `B` cannot be computed in the absence of `A`. Thus, in this implementation, we say that value `A` is used to compute value `B` iff: (3.a) `B` is a result of an op with operand `A` OR (3.b) `A` is used to compute some value `C` and `C` is used to compute `B`. --- It is important to note that there already exists an MLIR liveness utility here: llvm-project/mlir/include/mlir/Analysis/Liveness.h. So, what is the need for this new liveness analysis utility being added by this commit? That need is explained as follows:- The similarities between these two utilities is that both use the fixpoint iteration method to converge to the final result of liveness. And, both have the same theoretical understanding of liveness as well. However, the main difference between (a) the existing utility and (b) the added utility is the "scope of the analysis". (a) is restricted to analysing each block independently while (b) analyses blocks together, i.e., it looks at how the control flows from one block to the other, how a caller calls a callee, etc. The restriction in the former implies that some potentially non-live values could be marked live and thus the full potential of liveness analysis will not be realised. This can be understood using the example below: ``` 1 func.func private @private_dead_return_value_removal_0() -> (i32, i32) { 2 %0 = arith.constant 0 : i32 3 %1 = arith.addi %0, %0 : i32 4 return %0, %1 : i32, i32 5 } 6 func.func @public_dead_return_value_removal_0() -> (i32) { 7 %0:2 = func.call @private_dead_return_value_removal_0() : () -> (i32, i32) 8 return %0#0 : i32 9 } ``` Here, if we just restrict our analysis to a per-block basis like (a), we will say that the %1 on line 3 is live because it is computed and then returned outside its block by the function. But, if we perform a backward data-flow analysis like (b) does, we will say that %0#1 of line 7 is not live because it isn't returned by the public function and thus, %1 of line 3 is also not live. So, while (a) will be unable to suggest any IR optimizations, (b) can enable this IR to convert to:- ``` 1 func.func private @private_dead_return_value_removal_0() -> i32 { 2 %0 = arith.constant 0 : i32 3 return %0 : i32 4 } 5 func.func @public_dead_return_value_removal_0() -> i32 { 6 %0 = call @private_dead_return_value_removal_0() : () -> i32 7 return %0 : i32 8 } ``` One operation was removed and one unnecessary return value of the function was removed and the function signature was modified. This is an optimization that (b) can enable but (a) cannot. Such optimizations can help remove a lot of extraneous computations that are currently being done. Signed-off-by:Srishti Srivastava <srishtisrivastava.ai@gmail.com> Reviewed By: matthiaskramm, jcai19 Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D153779
Loading
Please sign in to comment