[PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables analysis, to recover the performance after r214064

[Alexander Kornienko]

I actually still think, that I have some code that started taking large
time to be analyzed after r214064 and didn't recover after r215650. But I
didn't get to creating a reasonable repro for you. And the number of files
left affected after r215650 is so small, that I didn't prioritize this high
enough. I'll still try to provide a repro soon.
On 20 Sep 2014 17:10, "Artyom Skrobov" <Artyom.Skrobov at arm.com> wrote:

> Anna, do you mean the performance had been acceptable after r214064, but
> degraded after r215650, which fixed the performance regression introduced
> in r214064?
>
>
>
> Do you have any specific example of code that takes longer to compile
> after r215650?
>
>
>
> Not hearing back from Alexander since August, I assumed the performance
> regression he observed after r215650 was not in fact related to that commit.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anna Zaks [mailto:ganna at apple.com]
> *Sent:* 20 September 2014 01:19
> *To:* Artyom Skrobov
> *Cc:* cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Commits; Ted Kremenek; Jordan Rose;
> Alexander Kornienko
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables
> analysis, to recover the performance after r214064
>
>
>
> Hi Artyom,
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, this commit (r215650) causes major performance regressions
> on our buildbots. In particular, building postgresql-9.1 times out.
>
>
>
> Please, revert as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anna.
>
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:13 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Artyom Skrobov <Artyom.Skrobov at arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Many thanks -- committed as r215650
>
> Alexander, can you confirm that the analyzer performance is now acceptable
> for your use cases?
>
>
>
> Artyom, sorry for the long delay. These files now work fine, but I still
> see up to 8-10 hours analysis time on a couple of other files. I'm sure I
> didn't see this before your first patch, but I can't yet tell in which
> revision it was introduced. I'll post more details and a repro later today.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted kremenek [mailto:kremenek at apple.com]
> Sent: 14 August 2014 16:36
> To: Artyom Skrobov
> Cc: Alexander Kornienko; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables
> analysis, to recover the performance after r214064
>
> Looks great to me.
>
> > On Aug 14, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Artyom Skrobov <Artyom.Skrobov at arm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Ted!
> >
> > Attaching the updated patch for a final review.
> >
> > Summary of changes:
> >
> > * Comments updated to reflect the two possible CFG traversal orders
> > * PostOrderCFGView::po_iterator taken out of the header file
> > * Iteration order for PostOrderCFGView changed to "reverse inverse
> > post-order", the one required for a backward analysis
> > * ReversePostOrderCFGView created, with the same iteration order that
> > PostOrderCFGView used to have, the one required for a forward analysis
> > * The two previous consumers of PostOrderCFGView, ThreadSafetyCommon.h
> and
> > Consumed.cpp, switched to use ReversePostOrderCFGView
> > * DataflowWorklistBase renamed to DataflowWorklist, and the two
> > specializations named BackwardDataflowWorklist and
> ForwardDataflowWorklist
> >
> > I believe this naming scheme matches the accepted terminology best.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140920/c7e44b42/attachment.html>