Speedup Function::getIntrinsicID() with caching of result

[Evan Cheng]

Hi Jean-Luc,

Is there any change to the compile time measurements?

Thanks,

Evan

On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Jean-Luc Duprat <jduprat at apple.com> wrote:

> Attached is the revised patch, taking into account all the feedback received.
> 
> Thank you for your comments,
> 
> JL
> 
> 
> <getIntrinsicID.patch>
> 
> 
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Jean-Luc Duprat <jduprat at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> As discussed, I will replace Module's destructor clear() call with a call to erase() in Function's destructor.
>> Thank you for the feedback, I'll send a revised patch out soon.
>> 
>> JL
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 09:59 , Michael Ilseman <milseman at apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> On 28/02/13 18:25, Michael Ilseman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Jean-Luc,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 28/02/13 02:16, Jean-Luc Duprat wrote:
>>>>>>> The attached patch caches the result of Function::getIntrinsicID() in a DenseMap attached to the LLVMContext.  This reduces the time actually spent doing string to ID conversion and shows a 10% improvement in compile time for a particularly bad case that involves ARM Neon intrinsics (these have many overloads).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This changes passes the regression tests and the nightly tests suite.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> if you delete an intrinsic function declaration from the module, don't you get a
>>>>>> stale pointer to freed memory in the cache?  To avoid all such issues, maybe it
>>>>>> is simpler to have the cache map the name (a StringRef) to the intrinsic ID,
>>>>>> rather than mapping the function pointer to the intrinsic ID.  You probably lose
>>>>>> some of the speedup then though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can he instead have the destructor remove itself from the cache? This would preserve the speedups of key-ing off of the Function pointer directly.
>>>> 
>>>> this would also mean that the code that clears the cache when a module is
>>>> deleted wouldn't be needed.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I think the replacement is needed.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, since it's the Function* that's the key, I believe the situation you described wouldn't provide an error so much as it would under-utilize the map by having extra meaningless entries. However, maybe there would be an error if anyone ever iterated over the cache. Replacing the Module's destructor clear() call with a Function's destructor erase() call might be a good way to go.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is if that freed memory gets reallocated for another function.  Then
>>>> the cache lookup will wrongly think that the new function has the intrinsic id
>>>> of the freed function.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ah, yes, of course.
>>> 
>>> Jean-Luc, do you think you could replace Module's destructor clear() call with a call to erase() in Function's destructor?
>>> 
>>>> Ciao, Duncan.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ciao, Duncan.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits