[LLVMdev] whole program optimization examples?
halivingston at gmail.com
Sat Oct 11 19:20:48 PDT 2014
Thanks, Philip for the "lay of the ground" picture. I think the situation
I'm in, which represents my employment (and now personal technical
curiosity) is that we're seeing LLVM implementations show up like every
other week or month, etc. and people are asking us, "well this mathematical
software of yours is great, but my engineer here tells me it's not using
this LLVM thing, and I think we're wasting cloud compute resources on by
using the JVM technology" -- this is how non-tech people are talking to me
about this :-)
I heard the LLVM JIT situation from a bunch of my friends, one of whom was
part of the Unladen Swallow effort and basically said -- "Trust me, it's
not going to work, I put 2 years of my life every single day into it".
But honestly, I personally am not familiar with writing a GC or what
necessarily entails -- I want to, and I can pick it up, but I spent most of
time writing JVM based tooling, profilers, and byte code cachers, etc.
With regards to ReadyNow, I think at least someone on my team was looking
In any case, I'll be following your blog closely now!
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>
> On 10/10/2014 06:24 PM, Hayden Livingston wrote:
>> I was wondering if there is an example list somewhere of whole program
>> optimizations done by LLVM based compilers?
>> I'm only familiar with method-level optimizations, and I'm being told wpo
>> can deliver many great speedups.
>> My language is currently staticly typed JIT based and uses the JVM, and I
>> want to move it over to LLVM so that I can have options where it can be
>> ahead of time compiled as well.
> Depending on your use case (and frankly, your budget), you might want to
> consider Azul Zing's ReadyNow features: http://www.azulsystems.com/
> This isn't true ahead of time compilation, but it would be a way to get
> most of the benefits of classic ahead of time compilation running on a
> standards compliant JVM.
> (Keep in mind, I work for Azul. I may be slightly biased here.)
>> I'm hearing bad things about LLVM's JIT capabilities -- specifically that
>> writing your own GC is going to be a pain.
> Out of curiosity, where did you hear this?
> We are actively working on improving the state of the world here. I'd
> suggest you take a look at the infrastructure patches currently up for
> review here: http://reviews.llvm.org/D5683
> These will hopefully land within a week or two. At that point, the "gc
> infrastructure" part should be functional. You'd have to pick a GC (LLVM
> does not provide one), but you're frontend could emit barriers and
> statepoints (gc parseable callsites) and everything should work. (Well,
> modulo bugs! Which I want to know about so we can fix.)
> There are a couple of options out there for pluggable GC libraries. The
> best well known is Boehm's conservative GC, but there are others.
> Once that's in, we're planning on landing all of the late safepoint
> insertion logic we've been working on. This will enable full optimization
> of code for garbage collected languages - provided you meet a few
> requirements on the input IR. You can read about it here:
> And find the (slightly out of date) code here:
>> Anyways, sort of diverged there, but still looking for WPO examples!
> I'm curious to hear others take here as well. A few things that jump out
> at me: cross function escape analysis, alias analysis (in support of things
> like LICM), and cross function constant propagation. Not all of these work
> out of the box, but with work (sometimes on your side, sometimes an LLVM
> patch), interesting results can be had.
> Fair warning, while getting an LLVM based JIT up and running at peak
> performance is a worthwhile endeavor (IMHO), it's also a fair amount of
> work. Getting something functional is relatively straight forward, but
> there's a lot of non-trivial tuning of your generated IR to really exploit
> the power of the optimizers well. We've talking person years of work
> here. Most of this is in the performance tuning phase, and depending on
> your point of comparison, it may be an easier or harder problem.
> Essentially, the closer to C performance your current runtime is, the
> harder you'll have to work. Getting 1/10 of C performance with an untuned
> LLVM based JIT is pretty easy; the closer you get to C (or JVM) performance
> the harder it gets.
> (Disclaimer: This is me speaking off the top of my head. Take everything
> I just said with a grain of salt.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev