With D107249 I saw huge compile time regressions on a module (150s ->
5700s). This turned out to be due to a huge RefSCC in
the module. As we ran the function simplification pipeline on functions
in the SCCs in the RefSCC, some of those SCCs would be split out to
their RefSCC, a child of the current RefSCC. We'd skip the remaining
SCCs in the huge RefSCC because the current RefSCC is now the RefSCC
just split out, then revisit the original huge RefSCC from the
beginning. This happened many times because many functions in the
RefSCC were optimizable to the point of becoming their own RefSCC.
This patch makes it so we don't skip SCCs not in the current RefSCC so
that we split out all the child RefSCCs on the first iteration of
RefSCC. When we split out a RefSCC, we invalidate the original RefSCC
and add the remainder of the SCCs into a new RefSCC in
RCWorklist. This happens repeatedly until we finish visiting all
SCCs, at which point there is only one valid RefSCC in
RCWorklist from the original RefSCC containing all the SCCs that
were not split out, and we visit that.
For example, in the newly added test cgscc-refscc-mutation-order.ll,
we'd previously run instcombine in this order:
f1, f2, f1, f3, f1, f4, f1
Now it's:
f1, f2, f3, f4, f1
This can cause more passes to be run in some specific cases,
e.g. if f1<->f2 gets optimized to f1<-f2, we'd previously run f1, f2;
now we run f1, f2, f2.
This improves kimwitu++ compile times by a lot (12-15% for various -O3 configs):
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=2371c5a0e06d22b48da0427cebaf53a5e5c54635&to=00908f1d67400cab1ad7bcd7cacc7558d1672e97&stat=instructions
Reviewed By: asbirlea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121953
```
// The legacy PM CGPassManager discovers SCCs this way:
for function in the source order
tarjanSCC(function)
// While the new PM CGSCCPassManager does:
for function in the reversed source order [1]
discover a reference graph SCC
build call graph SCCs inside the reference graph SCC
```
In the common cases, reference graph ~= call graph, the new PM order is
undesired because for `a | b | c` (3 independent functions), the new PM will
process them in the reversed order: c, b, a. If `a <-> b <-> c`, we can see
that `-print-after-all` will report the sole SCC as `scc: (c, b, a)`.
This patch corrects the iteration order. The discovered SCC order will match
the legacy PM in the common cases.
For some tests (`Transforms/Inline/cgscc-*.ll` and
`unittests/Analysis/CGSCCPassManagerTest.cpp`), the behaviors are dependent on
the SCC discovery order and there are too many check lines for the particular
order. This patch simply reverses the function order to avoid changing too many
check lines.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D90566
Summary:
When an SCC got split due to inlining, we have two mechanisms for reprocessing the updated SCC, first is UR.UpdatedC
that repeatedly rerun the new, current SCC; second is a worklist for all newly split SCCs. We can avoid rerun of
the same SCC when the SCC is set to be processed by both mechanisms *back to back*. In pathological cases, such redundant
rerun could cause exponential size growth due to inlining along cycles, even when there's no SCC mutation and hence
convergence is not a problem.
Note that it's ok to have SCC updated and rerun immediately, and also in the work list if we have actually moved an SCC
to be topologically "below" the current one due to merging. In that case, we will need to revisit the current SCC after
those moved SCCs. For that reason, the redundant avoidance here only targets back to back rerun of the same SCC - the
case described by the now removed FIXME comment.
Reviewers: chandlerc, wmi
Subscribers: llvm-commits, hoy
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80589
Arthur Eubanks