<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">The 1.29% is pretty considerable on functions that should never be hit according to profile information. This can indicate that there might be something amiss with the profile quality and that certain hot functions are not getting caught.
Alternatively, given the ~5% code size increase you mention in the other thread the cold code may not be being moved out to a cold page so i-cache pollution ends up being a factor. I think it would be worthwhile to dig deeper into why there’s any performance
degradation on functions that should never be called.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also if you’re curious on how to build clang itself with PGO the documentation is here: https://llvm.org/docs/HowToBuildWithPGO.html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 9/8/20, 5:21 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Min-Yih Hsu via llvm-dev" <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev-bounces@lists.llvm.org</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
We also did evaluations on FullLTO, here are the numbers:<br>
<br>
Experiment Name Link Time Speedup Target Overhead<br>
DeOpt Cold Zero Count 10.87% 1.29%<br>
DeOpt Cold 25% 18.76% 1.50%<br>
DeOpt Cold 50% 30.16% 3.94%<br>
DeOpt Cold 75% 38.71% 8.97%<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>