Speedup Function::getIntrinsicID() with caching of result

[Jean-Luc Duprat]

Will do, thank you all for your help in getting this change in.

JL



On Mar 1, 2013, at 10:52 , Michael Ilseman <milseman at apple.com> wrote:

> r176365
> 
> Jean-Luc, for your test commit/first commits, can you do the cleanup Duncan mentioned? Also, as Duncan mentioned, could you add a unit test that checks that the cache behaves properly for Function and Module deletion?
> 
> If you look in llvm/unittests, you'll see where you can write C++ code as a unit test.
> 
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 12:25 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jean-Luc,
>> 
>> On 28/02/13 23:43, Jean-Luc Duprat wrote:
>>> Attached is the revised patch, taking into account all the feedback received.
>> 
>> --- lib/IR/Module.cpp	(revision 176302)
>> +++ lib/IR/Module.cpp	(working copy)
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> 
>> #include "llvm/IR/Module.h"
>> #include "SymbolTableListTraitsImpl.h"
>> +#include "LLVMContextImpl.h"
>> #include "llvm/ADT/DenseSet.h"
>> #include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
>> #include "llvm/ADT/SmallString.h"
>> 
>> I guess this bit isn't needed any more.  Also, did you check that when a module
>> is deleted, the cache is cleared (i.e. that function destructors are run).
>> 
>> Ciao, Duncan.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments,
>>> 
>>> JL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>