Version 1 (modified by claus, 8 years ago) (diff) 

Inlining
Inlining refers to the unfolding of definitions, ie replacing uses of identifiers with the definitions bound to them. Doing this at compile time can expose potential for other optimizations. As described in the User Guide, this is currently limited to nonrecursive definitions, to avoid nonterminating recursion in the inliner.
Unfolding Recursions
Since many definitions in nontrivial programs are recursive, leaving them out alltogether is a serious limitation, especially in view of the encoding of loops via tail recursion. In conventional languages, loop transformations such as loop unrolling are at the heart of optimizing high performance code (for a useful overview, see Compiler Transformations for HighPerformance Computing, ACM Computing Surveys, 1994). As a consequence, many performancecritical Haskell programs contain handunrolled recursions, which is errorprone and obscures declarative contents.
There is a tension wrt to the stage in the compilation pipeline that should handle loop unrolling: if we are looking only at removing loop administration overhead and code size, then the applicability of unrolling depends on information that is only available in the backend (such as register and cache sizes); if we are looking at enabling other optimizations, then the applicability of unrolling depends on interactions with code that is located in the Core to Core simplifier (such as rewrite rules for array fusion and recycling). We assume that loop transformations should be considered at both stages, for their respective benefits and drawbacks. This page is concerned with Corelevel unfolding of recursive definitions, closing the gap in GHC's inliner.
An Informal Specification
For the purpose of unfolding/inlining definitions, look at groups of mutually recursive definitions as a whole, rather than trying to think about individual definitions. Compare the existing documentation for `INLINE/NOINLINE` pragmas.
In the following, let REC({f g ..}) denote the set of all identifiers belonging to the recursion involving f, g, .. (f, g, .. in REC({f g ..}) or in {# INLINE f g .. #} are required to belong to the same recursion).
{# NOINLINE f #}
as now: no unfolding of f
{# INLINE f #}
as now: for nonrecursive f only, unfold definition of f at call sites of f (might in future be taken as goahead for analysisbased recursion unfolding)
{# INLINE f g .. PEEL n #}
_new_: unfold definitions of the named identifiers at their call sites *outside* their recursion group REC({f g ..}). In other words, *entries into* REC({f g ..}) via f, g, .. are unfolded.
(for the special case of loops this corresponds to loop peeling)
{# INLINE f g .. UNROLL m #}
_new_: unfold definitions of the named identifiers at their call sites *inside* their recursion group REC({f g ..}). In other words, *crossreferences inside* REC({f g ..}) via f, g, .. are unfolded.
(for the special case of loops this corresponds to loop unrolling)
{# INLINE f g .. PEEL n UNROLL m #}
combine the previous two
The numeric parameters are to be interpreted as if each call to f, g, .. was annotated with both PEEL and UNROLL limits for the whole recursion group REC({f g ..}), starting with the limits from the pragmas (write f_n_m for a call to f with PEEL limit n and UNROLL limit m), to be decreased for every PEEL or UNROLL action, as follows (REC({f g}) = {f g h}, in these examples):

let {# INLINE f g PEEL n UNROLL m #} f .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. g .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. h .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. in ..f_n_m.. PEEL> let {# INLINE f g PEEL n UNROLL m #} f .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. g .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. h .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. in .... f_(n1)_0 .. g_(n1)_0 .. h_0_0 ....
Notes:
 unfolding produces copies of definition bodies
 the PEEL limit at the call site decides the PEEL limit for all calls to REC({f g}) in the inlined copy; this limit decreases with each PEEL step
 since peeling unfolds code into call sites from outside the recursion, the UNROLL limits of calls to REC({f g}) are effectively 0 in the inlined copy
 only calls to identifiers named in the INLINE pragma can be peeled (f and g here), calls to other members of the same recursion remain unaffected (h here), having effective limits of 0

let {# INLINE f g PEEL n UNROLL m #} f .. = .. f_0_m .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. g .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. h .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. in .. UNROLL> let {# INLINE f g PEEL n UNROLL m #} f .. = .. .. f_0_(m1) .. g_0_(m1) .. h_0_0 .. .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. g .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. h .. = .. f_?_? .. g_?_? .. h_0_0 .. in ..
Notes: unfolding produces copies of definition bodies
 the UNROLL limit at the call site decides the UNROLL limit for all calls to REC({f g}) in the inlined copy; this limit decreases with each UNROLL step
 peeling conceptually precedes unrolling (PEEL limit needs to reach 0 before unrolling commences), to avoid peeling unrolled definitions (this corresponds to an existing restriction of no inlining into definitions to be inlined)
 unrolling unfolds copies of the original definitions, not the already unrolled ones, again corresponding to the existing inlining restriction (TODO how to specify this avoidance of unrolling unrolled defs in this form of local rule spec?)
 only calls to identifiers named in the INLINE pragma can be unrolled (f and g here), calls to other members of the same recursion remain unaffected (h here), having effective limits of 0
Peeling and unrolling stop when the respective count annotation has reached 0. Peeling precedes unrolling, to avoid ambiguities in the size of the peeled definitions. Note that calls into mutual recursion groups is the domain of PEEL, while UNROLL only applies to calls within mutual recursion groups.
{# INLINE f PEEL n #}, for n>0, corresponds to worker/ wrapper transforms (previously done manually) + inline wrapper, and should therefore also be taken as a hint for the compiler to try the static argument transformation for f (the "worker").
Nonsupporting implementations should treat these as INLINE pragmas (same warning/ignore or automatic unfold behaviour). This might be easier to accomplish if INLINE PEEL/UNROLL were implemented as separate pragmas, even though they are refinements of INLINE conceptually.
About the current sideconditions for INLINE pragmas:
 no functions inlined into f:
still makes sense for PEEL, needs to be adapted with an exception for UNROLL, in that we want to be able to unroll into the function being unrolled, but we want to use the original body for the unrolling, not an already unrolled one (else unrolling would be exponential rather than linear); this appears to be in line with existing work on INLINE
 no floatin/floatout/cse:
similar to existing INLINE
 no worker/wrapper transform in strictness analyser:
similar to existing INLINE
 loop breakers:
PEEL/UNROLL have their own limits, applicable to the whole recursion group, creating intrinsic loop breakers when the counters run out. Every PEEL or UNROLL action creates calls with smaller counters in the inlined copies, if the calls go into the same recursion.
Further References
[0] GHC mailing list threads, with examples and discussion
[1] An Aggressive Approach to Loop Unrolling, 1995
[2] Compiler Transformations for HighPerformance Computing, ACM Computing Surveys, 1994
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_transformation
[4] loop unrolling vs hardware
[5] Unrolling and simplifying expressions with Template Haskell, Ian Lynagh, 2003
Attachments (3)

unroll0.hs
(1.6 KB) 
added by claus 8 years ago.
trivial loop, INLINE loop PEEL 1 UNROLL 4, plus reassociation RULES

unroll1.hs
(1.6 KB) 
added by claus 8 years ago.
loop over bulkarray op, INLINE loop PEEL 1 UNROLL 4 activates array fusion RULES

unroll2.hs
(729 bytes) 
added by claus 8 years ago.
nonstrict foldl, INLINE foldl PEEL 1 (+SAT) prevents stackoverflow
Download all attachments as: .zip