[all-commits] [llvm/llvm-project] cc2fbc: [CodeLayout] Faster basic block reordering, ext-ts...

[spupyrev via All-commits]

  Branch: refs/heads/main
  Home:   https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project
  Commit: cc2fbc648d7babbfa612f4f5eda3160212ef6ca7
      https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cc2fbc648d7babbfa612f4f5eda3160212ef6ca7
  Author: spupyrev <spupyrev at users.noreply.github.com>
  Date:   2023-10-25 (Wed, 25 Oct 2023)

  Changed paths:
    M llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeLayout.cpp
    M llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/code_placement_ext_tsp.ll
    M llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/code_placement_ext_tsp_large.ll

  Log Message:
  -----------
  [CodeLayout] Faster basic block reordering, ext-tsp (#68617)

Aggressive inlining might produce huge functions with >10K of basic 
blocks. Since BFI treats _all_ blocks and jumps as "hot" having 
non-negative (but perhaps small) weight, the current implementation can
be slow, taking minutes to produce an layout. This change introduces a
few modifications that significantly (up to 50x on some instances) 
speeds up the computation. Some notable changes:
- reduced the maximum chain size to 512 (from the prior 4096);
- introduced MaxMergeDensityRatio param to avoid merging chains with
very different densities;
- dropped a couple of params that seem unnecessary.

Looking at some "offline" metrics (e.g., the number of created 
fall-throughs), there shouldn't be problems; in fact, I do see some
metrics go up. But it might be hard/impossible to measure perf 
difference for such small changes. I did test the performance clang-14 
binary and do not record a perf or i-cache-related differences.

My 5 benchmarks, with ext-tsp runtime (the lower the better) and 
"tsp-score" (the higher the better).
**Before**:

- benchmark 1:
  num functions: 13,047
  reordering running time is 2.4 seconds
  score: 125503458 (128.3102%)
- benchmark 2:
  num functions: 16,438
  reordering running time is 3.4 seconds
  score: 12613997277 (129.7495%)
- benchmark 3:
  num functions: 12,359
  reordering running time is 1.9 seconds
  score: 1315881613 (105.8991%)
- benchmark 4:
  num functions: 96,588
  reordering running time is 7.3 seconds
  score: 89513906284 (100.3413%)
- benchmark 5:
  num functions: 1
  reordering running time is 372 seconds
  score: 21292505965077 (99.9979%)
- benchmark 6:
  num functions:  71,155
  reordering running time is 314 seconds
  score: 29795381626270671437824 (102.7519%)

**After**:
- benchmark 1:
  reordering running time is 2.2 seconds
  score: 125510418 (128.3130%)

- benchmark 2:
  reordering running time is 2.6 seconds
  score: 12614502162 (129.7525%)

- benchmark 3:
  reordering running time is 1.6 seconds
  score: 1315938168 (105.9024%)

- benchmark 4:
  reordering running time is 4.9 seconds
  score: 89518095837 (100.3454%)

- benchmark 5:
  reordering running time is 4.8 seconds
  score: 21292295939119 (99.9971%)

- benchmark 6:
  reordering running time is 104 seconds
  score: 29796710925310302879744 (102.7565%)