<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Easwaran Raman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:eraman@google.com" target="_blank">eraman@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:35 PM, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Easwaran Raman <<a href="mailto:eraman@google.com">eraman@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Robinson, Paul<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:Paul_Robinson@playstation.sony.com">Paul_Robinson@playstation.sony.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >> From: Easwaran Raman [mailto:<a href="mailto:eraman@google.com">eraman@google.com</a>]<br>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:27 PM<br>
>> >> To: Xinliang David Li<br>
>> >> Cc: Robinson, Paul; Xinliang David Li; <<a href="mailto:llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a>> List<br>
>> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline hint for methods defined in-class<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The method to identify functions with in-class definitions is one part<br>
>> >> of my question. Even if there is a way to do that without passing the<br>
>> >> hint, I'm interested in getting feedback on treating it at-par with<br>
>> >> functions having the inline hint in inline cost analysis.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Well, personally I think having the 'inline' keyword mean "try harder"<br>
>> > is worth something, but that's intuition backed by no data whatsoever.<br>
>> > Your patch would turn 'inline' into noise, when applied to a function<br>
>> > with an in-class definition. Granted that the way the C++ standard<br>
>> > describes 'inline' it is effectively noise in that situation.<br>
>><br>
>> The reason I started looking into this is that, for a suite of<br>
>> benchmarks we use internally, treating the in-class definitions<br>
>> equivalent to having an 'inline' keyword, when combined with a higher<br>
>> inlinehint-threshold, is a measurable win in performance. I am not<br>
>> making any claim that this is a universal truth, but intuitively, the<br>
>> description of 'inline' in C++ standard seems to influence what<br>
>> methods are defined in-class.<br>
><br>
><br>
> I'm not sure that's the case - in my experience (for my own code & the code<br>
> I see from others) people put stuff in headers that's "short enough" that<br>
> it's not worth the hassle of an external definition. I don't really think<br>
> authors are making an actual judgment about how much of a win inlining their<br>
> function is most of the time when they put a definition inline in a class.<br>
> (maybe a litttle more likely when it's a standalone function where you have<br>
> to write "inline" explicitly, but maybe not even then)<br>
</div></div>Ok, that may very well be the case.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> It would seem that improving the inliner to do a better job of judging the<br>
> inlining benefit would be ideal (for this case and for LTO, etc - where<br>
> we'll pick up equivalently small non-inline function definitions that the<br>
> author had decided to define out of line (either because they used to be<br>
> longer or the author didn't find out of line definitions to be as<br>
> inconveniently verbose as someone else, etc)), if there's something more<br>
> useful to go on than "the user sort of maybe implied that this would be good<br>
> to inline". It seems like a very weak signal.<br>
<br>
</span>I don't disagree with your ideal scenario. In the current non-ideal<br>
state, LLVM does use a larger threshold for using the 'inline'<br>
keyword. The question is whether using this larger threshold for<br>
in-class definitions is a backward step.<br></blockquote><div><br>Probably worth having this conversation on cfe-commits (as it's a Clang change and Clang developers are likely to have a better feel for how C++ developers use inline definitions).<br><br>Might want to rope in Chrome developers too - they are very sensitive to size increases.<br><br>& prototyping with the change to filter out templates would be relevant, of course.<br><br>I don't see large-scale numbers (eg: across Google's perf benchmarks overall?) - spec is a bit narrow (& tends towards C code, if I'm not mistaken, so isn't likely to show much about this change), and that it improves the benchmark you were trying to improve would need to be weighed against the changes to a broader sample, I would think?<br><br>- David<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- Easwaran<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> - David<br>
><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> - Easwaran<br>
>><br>
>> > --paulr<br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Thanks,<br>
>> >> Easwaran<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Xinliang David Li<br>
>> >> <<a href="mailto:xinliangli@gmail.com">xinliangli@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >> > The problem is that the other way around is not true: a function<br>
>> >> > linkonce_odr linkage may be neither inline declared nor have in-class<br>
>> >> > definition.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > David<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Robinson, Paul<br>
>> >> > <<a href="mailto:Paul_Robinson@playstation.sony.com">Paul_Robinson@playstation.sony.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >> >> > From: <a href="mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:llvmdev-">llvmdev-</a><br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a>]<br>
>> >> >> > On<br>
>> >> >> > Behalf Of Easwaran Raman<br>
>> >> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:54 AM<br>
>> >> >> > To: Xinliang David Li<br>
>> >> >> > Cc: <<a href="mailto:llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a>> List<br>
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Inline hint for methods defined in-class<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > Ping.<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Xinliang David Li<br>
>> >> <<a href="mailto:davidxl@google.com">davidxl@google.com</a>><br>
>> >> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >> > > that looks like a different fix. The case mentioned by Easwaran<br>
>> >> >> > > is<br>
>> >> >> > ><br>
>> >> >> > > class A{<br>
>> >> >> > > int foo () { return 1; }<br>
>> >> >> > > ...<br>
>> >> >> > > };<br>
>> >> >> > ><br>
>> >> >> > > where 'foo' is not explicitly declared with 'inline' keyword.<br>
>> >> >> > ><br>
>> >> >> > > David<br>
>> >> >> > ><br>
>> >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Balaram Makam<br>
>> >> <<a href="mailto:bmakam@codeaurora.org">bmakam@codeaurora.org</a>><br>
>> >> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >> > >> AFAIK, this was fixed in r233817.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> That was later reverted.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> >> >> > >> From: <a href="mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> >> >> > >> [mailto:<a href="mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a>]<br>
>> >> >> > On<br>
>> >> >> > >> Behalf Of Easwaran Raman<br>
>> >> >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 6:59 PM<br>
>> >> >> > >> To: <a href="mailto:llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> >> >> > >> Cc: David Li<br>
>> >> >> > >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Inline hint for methods defined in-class<br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> Clang adds the InlineHint attribute to functions that are<br>
>> >> explicitly<br>
>> >> >> > marked<br>
>> >> >> > >> inline, but not if they are defined in the class body. I tried<br>
>> >> >> > >> the<br>
>> >> >> > following<br>
>> >> >> > >> patch, which I believe handles the in-class definition<br>
>> >> >> > >> case:<br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> --- a/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp<br>
>> >> >> > >> +++ b/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp<br>
>> >> >> > >> @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ void<br>
>> >> >> > >> CodeGenFunction::StartFunction(GlobalDecl<br>
>> >> >> > >> GD,<br>
>> >> >> > >> if (const FunctionDecl *FD =<br>
>> >> >> > >> dyn_cast_or_null<FunctionDecl>(D))<br>
>> >> {<br>
>> >> >> > >> if (!CGM.getCodeGenOpts().NoInline) {<br>
>> >> >> > >> for (auto RI : FD->redecls())<br>
>> >> >> > >> - if (RI->isInlineSpecified()) {<br>
>> >> >> > >> + if (RI->isInlined()) {<br>
>> >> >> > >> Fn->addFnAttr(llvm::Attribute::InlineHint);<br>
>> >> >> > >> break;<br>
>> >> >> > >> }<br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> I tried this on C++ benchmarks in SPEC 2006. There is no<br>
>> >> noticeable<br>
>> >> >> > >> performance difference and the maximum text size increase is <<br>
>> >> 0.25%.<br>
>> >> >> > >> I then built clang with and without this change. This increases<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> >> > text<br>
>> >> >> > >> size by 4.1%. For measuring performance, I compiled a large<br>
>> >> >> > >> (4.8<br>
>> >> >> > million<br>
>> >> >> > >> lines) preprocessed file. This change improves runtime<br>
>> >> >> > >> performance<br>
>> >> by<br>
>> >> >> > 0.9%<br>
>> >> >> > >> (average of 10 runs) in O0 and O2.<br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> I think knowing whether a function is defined inside a class<br>
>> >> >> > >> body<br>
>> >> is<br>
>> >> >> > >> a<br>
>> >> >> > >> useful hint to the inliner. FWIW, GCC's inliner doesn't<br>
>> >> differentiate<br>
>> >> >> > these<br>
>> >> >> > >> from explicit inline functions. If the above results doesn't<br>
>> >> justify<br>
>> >> >> > this<br>
>> >> >> > >> change, are there other benchmarks that I should evaluate?<br>
>> >> >> > >> Another<br>
>> >> >> > >> possibility is to add a separate hint for this instead of using<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> >> > existing<br>
>> >> >> > >> inlinehint to allow for better tuning in the inliner.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> A function with an in-class definition will have linkonce_odr<br>
>> >> >> linkage,<br>
>> >> >> so it should be possible to identify such functions in the inliner<br>
>> >> >> without introducing the inlinehint attribute.<br>
>> >> >> --paulr<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > >> Thanks,<br>
>> >> >> > >> Easwaran<br>
>> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> > >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> > >> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> >> >> > >> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
>> >> >> > >><br>
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> > <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> >> >> > <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> >> >> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>