[llvm-dev] (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 14 11:36:41 PST 2017
I've run the patch on https://reviews.llvm.org/D28368 on the test-suite and other benchmarks, for AArch64 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer, both for Cortex-A53 and Cortex-A57.
The geomean over the few hundred programs in there is roughly the same for Cortex-A53 and Cortex-A57: a bit over 1% improvement in execution speed for a bit over 5% increase in code size.
Obviously I wouldn't want this for optimization levels where code size is of any concern, like -Os or -Oz, but don't have a problem with this going in for other optimization levels where this isn't a concern.
On 13 Feb 2017, at 19:56, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
FWIW, I'm good with the updated data, but I'd really like at least someone from Apple and someone from ARM to chime in here... CC-ing random people in the hope it helps...
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:30 AM Dehao Chen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Thanks for the comment. The performance experiments were performed on Intel Sandybridge. Updated this info to the patch description.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at rotateright.com>> wrote:
Since we can override the settings, I have no objections.
I still think it would be good to document here and in the review/commit message which CPU model was used to acquire the experimental data. That could be useful to anyone that comes along later and wants to reproduce and/or compare to the original, motivating data.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com<mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote:
Thanks Hal, could you help approve https://reviews.llvm.org/D28368?
I'll hold off until early Tuesday in case other people have more concerns.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
On 02/10/2017 05:21 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
Thanks every for the comments.
Do we have a decision here?
You're good to go as far as I'm concerned.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 05:29 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote:
Sorry if I missed it, but what machine/CPU are you using to collect the perf numbers?
I am concerned that what may be a win on a CPU that keeps a couple of hundred instructions in-flight and has many MB of caches will not hold for a small core.
In my experience, unrolling tends to help weaker cores even more than stronger ones because it allows the instruction scheduler more opportunities to hide latency. Obviously, instruction-cache pressure is an important consideration, but the code size changes here seems small.
Is the proposed change universal? Is there a way to undo it?
All of the unrolling thresholds should be target-adjustable using the TTI::getUnrollingPreferences hook.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Dehao Chen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Ping... with the updated code size impact data, any more comments? Any more data that would be interesting to collect?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com<mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote:
Here is the code size impact for clang, chrome and 24 google internal benchmarks (name omited, 14 15 16 are encoding/decoding benchmarks similar as h264). There are 2 columns, for threshold 300 and 450 respectively.
I also tested the llvm test suite. Changing the threshold to 300/450 does not affect code gen for any binary in the test suite.
clang 0.30% 0.63%
chrome 0.00% 0.00%
1 0.27% 0.67%
2 0.44% 0.93%
3 0.44% 0.93%
4 0.26% 0.53%
5 0.74% 2.21%
6 0.74% 2.21%
7 0.74% 2.21%
8 0.46% 1.05%
9 0.35% 0.86%
10 0.35% 0.86%
11 0.40% 0.83%
12 0.32% 0.65%
13 0.31% 0.64%
14 4.52% 8.23%
15 9.90% 19.38%
16 9.90% 19.38%
17 0.68% 1.97%
18 0.21% 0.48%
19 0.99% 3.44%
20 0.19% 0.46%
21 0.57% 1.62%
22 0.37% 1.05%
23 0.78% 1.30%
24 0.51% 1.54%
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
clang, chrome, and some internal large apps are good candidates for size metrics.
I'd also add the standard LLVM testsuite just because it's the suite everyone in the community can use.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
I had suggested having size metrics from somewhat larger applications such as Chrome, Webkit, or Firefox; clang itself; and maybe some of our internal binaries with rough size brackets?
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com<mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote:
With the new data points, any comments on whether this can justify setting fully inline threshold to 300 (or any other number) in O2? I can collect more data points if it's helpful.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com<mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote:
Recollected the data from trunk head with stddev data and more threshold data points attached:
stddev/mean 300 450 600 750
403 0.37% 0.11% 0.11% 0.09% 0.79%
433 0.14% 0.51% 0.25% -0.63% -0.29%
445 0.08% 0.48% 0.89% 0.12% 0.83%
447 0.16% 3.50% 2.69% 3.66% 3.59%
453 0.11% 1.49% 0.45% -0.07% 0.78%
464 0.17% 0.75% 1.80% 1.86% 1.54%
300 450 600 750
403 0.56% 2.41% 2.74% 3.75%
433 0.96% 2.84% 4.19% 4.87%
445 2.16% 3.62% 4.48% 5.88%
447 2.96% 5.09% 6.74% 8.89%
453 0.94% 1.67% 2.73% 2.96%
464 8.02% 13.50% 20.51% 26.59%
Compile time is proportional in the experiments and more noisy, so I did not include it.
We have >2% speedup on some google internal benchmarks when switching the threshold from 150 to 300.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com<mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
Another question is about PGO integration: is it already hooked there? Should we have a more aggressive threshold in a hot function? (Assuming we’re willing to spend some binary size there but not on the cold path).
I would even wire the *unrolling* the other way: just suppress unrolling in cold paths to save binary size. rolled loops seem like a generally good thing in cold code unless they are having some larger impact (IE, the loop itself is more expensive than the unrolled form).
Agree that we could suppress unrolling in cold path to save code size. But that's orthogonal with the propose here. This proposal focuses on O2 performance: shall we have different (higher) fully unroll threshold than dynamic/partial unroll.
I agree that this is (to some extent) orthogonal, and it makes sense to me to differentiate the threshold for full unroll and the dynamic/partial case.
There is one issue that makes these not orthogonal.
If even *static* profile hints will reduce some of the code size increase caused by higher unrolling thresholds for non-cold code, we should factor that into the tradeoff in picking where the threshold goes.
However, getting PGO into the full unroller is currently challenging outside of the new pass manager. We already have some unfortunate hacks around this in LoopUnswitch that are making the port of it to the new PM more annoying.
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev