Based on testing of internal benchmarks, I'm lowering this threshold to
a value of 0.1%. This means that SamplePGO will respect 99.9% of the
original inline decisions when following a profile.
The performance difference is noticeable in some tests. With the
previous threshold, the speedups over baseline -O2 was about 0.63%. With
the new default, the speedups are around 3% on average.
The point of this threshold is not to do more aggressive inlining. When
an inlined callsite crosses this threshold, SamplePGO will redo the
inline decision so that it can better apply the input profile.
By respecting most original inline decisions, we can apply more of the
input profile because the shape of the code follows the profile more
closely.
In the next series, I'll be looking at adding some inline hints for the
cold callsites and for toplevel functions that are hot/cold as well.
llvm-svn: 254211
When the original binary is executed and sampled, the resulting profile
contains information on the original inline stack. We currently follow
the original inline plan if we notice that the inlined callsite has more
than 0 samples to it.
A better way is to determine whether the callsite is actually worth
inlining. If the callsite accumulates a small fraction of the samples
spent in the parent function, then we don't want to bother inlining it
(as it means that the callsite is actually cold).
This patch introduces a threshold expressed in percentage of samples
in relation to the parent function. If the callsite uses less than N%
of the total samples used by its parent, the original inline decision is
not re-applied.
I've set the threshold to the very arbitrary value of 5%. I'm yet to do
any actual experiments to see what's a good value. I wanted to separate
the basic mechanism from the tuning.
llvm-svn: 254034
The existing coverage tracker counts the number of records that were used
from the input profile. An alternative view of coverage is to check how
many available samples were applied.
This way, if the profile contains several records with few samples, it
doesn't really matter much that they were not applied. The more
interesting records to apply are the ones that contribute many samples.
llvm-svn: 253912
If a function was originally inlined but not actually hot at runtime,
its samples will not be counted inside the parent function. This throws
off the coverage calculation because it expects to find more used
records than it should.
Fixed by ignoring functions that will not be inlined into the parent.
Currently, this is inlined functions with 0 samples. In subsequent
patches, I'll change this to mean "cold" functions.
llvm-svn: 253716
While debugging some sampling coverage problems, I found this useful:
When applying samples from a profile, it helps to also know what line
offset and discriminator the sample belongs to. This makes it easy to
correlate against the input profile.
llvm-svn: 253670
The initial coverage checking code for sample records failed to count
records inside inlined profiles. This change fixes the oversight.
llvm-svn: 251752
This adds the flag -mllvm -sample-profile-check-coverage=N to the
SampleProfile pass. N is the percent of input sample records that the
user expects to apply. If the pass does not use N% (or more) of the
sample records in the input, it emits a warning.
This is useful to detect some forms of stale profiles. If the code has
drifted enough from the original profile, there will be records that do
not match the IR anymore.
This will not detect cases where a sample profile record for line L is
referring to some other instructions that also used to be at line L.
llvm-svn: 251568
The pass was keeping around a lot of per-function data (visited blocks,
edges, dominance, etc) that is just taking up memory for no reason. In
fact, from function to function it could potentially confuse the
propagator since some maps are indexed by line offsets which can be
common between functions.
llvm-svn: 251531
When emitting a remark for a conditional branch annotation, the remark
uses the line location information of the conditional branch in the
message. In some cases, that information is unavailable and the
optimization would segfaul. I'm still not sure whether this is a bug or
WAI, but the optimizer should not die because of this.
llvm-svn: 251420
This adds a couple of optimization remarks to the SamplePGO
transformation. When it decides to inline a hot function (to mimic the
inline stack and repeat useful inline decisions in the original build).
It will also report branch destinations. For instance, given the code
fragment:
6 if (i < 1000)
7 sum -= i;
8 else
9 sum += -i * rand();
If the 'else' branch is taken most of the time, building this code with
-Rpass=sample-profile will produce:
a.cc:9:14: remark: most popular destination for conditional branches at small.cc:6:9 [-Rpass=sample-profile]
sum += -i * rand();
^
llvm-svn: 251330
In some cases (as illustrated in the unittest), lineno can be less than the heade_lineno because the function body are included from some other files. In this case, offset will be negative. This patch makes clang still able to match the profile to IR in this situation.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13914
llvm-svn: 250873
This adjusts all integers in the reader/writer to reflect the types
stored on profile files. They should all be unsigned 32-bit or 64-bit
values. Changed all associated internal types to be uint32_t or
uint64_t.
The only place that needed some adjustments is in the sample profile
transformation. Altough the weight read from the profile are 64-bit
values, the internal API for branch weights only accepts 32-bit values.
The pass now saturates weights that overflow uint32_t.
llvm-svn: 250427
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13576
As we are using hierarchical profile, there is no need to keep HeaderLineno a member variable. This is because each level of the inline stack will have its own header lineno. One should use the head lineno of its own inline stack level instead of the actual symbol.
llvm-svn: 249848
The problem here were the function analyses invoked by the function pass
manager from the new IPO pass. I looked at other IPO passes needing
dominance information and the only one that requires it (partial
inliner) does not use the standard dependency mechanism.
This patch mimics what the partial inliner does to compute dominance,
post-dominance and loop info. One thing I like about this approach is
that I can delay the computation of all this until I actually need it.
This should bring the ASAN buildbot back to green. If there's a better
way to fix this, I'll do it in a follow-up patch.
llvm-svn: 246066
Eventually, we will need sample profiles to be incorporated into the
inliner's cost models. To do this, we need the sample profile pass to
be a module pass.
This patch makes no functional changes beyond the mechanical adjustments
needed to run SampleProfile as a module pass.
llvm-svn: 245940
Diego Novillo