[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Codifying (but not formalizing) the optimization levels in LLVM and Clang

[Justin Holewinski]

If I understand the attributes correctly, they would be function-level
attributes applied to IR functions, correct?  I'm curious what the
semantics would be for cross-function optimization.  For example, consider
a function "foo" defined with maxopt and a function "bar" defined with
optsize.  If foo() calls bar() and the inliner wants to inline bar() into
foo(), is that legal?  If so, that may cause odd effects as you may perform
expensive optimizations later on the inlined version of bar(), even though
the original function is marked optsize.

Also, a nit-pick:  can we make the naming consistent?  It feels a bit weird
to have maxOPT and OPTsize.  Perhaps use sizeopt and minsizeopt, or optmax
and optquick?


On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>wrote:

> This has been an idea floating around in my head for a while and after
> several discussions with others it continues to hold up so I thought I
> would mail it out. Sorry for cross posting to both lists, but this is an
> issue that would significantly impact both LLVM and Clang.
>
> Essentially, LLVM provides canned optimization "levels" for frontends to
> re-use. This is nothing new. However, we don't have good names for them, we
> don't expose them at the IR level, and we have a hard time figuring out
> which optimizations belong in which levels. I'd like to try addressing that
> by coming up with names and a description of the basic intend goal of each
> level. I would like, if folks are happy with these ideas, to add these
> types of descriptions along side these attributes to the langref. Ideas on
> other (better?) places to document this would be welcome. Certainly,
> Clang's documentation would need to be updated to reflect this.
>
> Hopefully we can minimally debate this until the bikeshed is a tolerable
> shade. Note that I'm absolutely biased based on the behavior of Clang and
> GCC with these optimization levels, and the relevant history there.
> However, I'm adding and deviating from the purely historical differences to
> try and better model the latest developments in LLVM's optimizer... So here
> goes:
>
>
> 1) The easiest: 'Minimize Size' or '-Oz'
> - Attribute: minsize (we already have it, nothing to do here)
> - Goal: minimize the size of the resulting binary, at (nearly) any cost.
>
>
> 2) Optimize for size or '-Os'
> - Attribute: optsize (we already have it, nothing to do here)
> - Goal: Optimize the execution of the binary without unreasonably[1]
> increasing the binary size.
> This one is a bit fuzzy, but usually people don't have a hard time
> figuring out where the line is. The primary difference between minsize and
> optsize is that with minsize a pass is free to *hurt* performance to shrink
> the size.
>
> [1] The definition of 'unreasonable' is of course subjective, but here is
> at least one strong indicator: any code size growth which is inherently
> *speculative* (that is, there isn't a known, demonstrable performance
> benefit, but rather it is "often" or "maybe" a benefit) is unlikely to be a
> good fit in optsize. The canonical example IMO is a vectorizer -- while it
> is reasonable to vectorize a loop, if the vector version might not be
> executed, and thus the scalar loop remains as well, then it is a poor fit
> for optsize.
>
>
> 3) Optimize quickly or '-O1'
> - Attribute: quickopt (this would be a new attribute)
> - Goal: Perform basic optimizations to improve both performance and
> simplicity of the code, but perform them *quickly*.
> This level is all about compile time, but in a holistic sense. It tries to
> perform basic optimizations to get reasonably efficient code, and get it
> very quickly.
>
>
> 4) Good, well-balanced optimizations, or '-O2'
> - Attribute: opt (new attribute)
> - Goal: produce a well optimized binary trading off compile time, space,
> and runtime efficiency.
> This should be an excellent default for general purpose programs. The idea
> is to do as much optimization as we can, in as reasonable of a time frame,
> and with as reasonable code size impact as possible. This level should
> always produce binaries at least as fast as optsize, but they might be both
> bigger and faster. This level should always produce binaries at least as
> fast as quickopt, but they might be both slower to compile.
>
>
> 5) Optimize to the max or '-O3'
> - Attribute: maxopt (new attribute)
> - Goal: produce the fastest binary possible.
> This level has historically been almost exclusively about trading off more
> binary size for speed than '-O2', but I would propose we change it to be
> more about trading off either binary size or compilation time to achieve a
> better performing binary. This level should always produce binaries at
> least as fast as opt, but they might be faster at the cost of them being
> larger and taking more time to compile. This would in some cases be a
> change for LLVM and is definitely a deviation from GCC where O3 will in
> many cases produce *slower* binaries due to code size increases that are
> not accompanied by corresponding performance increases.
>
>
> To go with these LLVM attributes I'd like to add support for adding
> attributes in Clang, both compatible with GCC and with the names above for
> clarity. The goal being to allow a specific function to have its
> optimization level overridden from the command line based level.
>
>
> A final note: I would like to remove all other variations on the '-O'
> flag. That includes the really strange '-O4' behavior. Whether the
> compilation is LTO should be an orthogonal decision to the particular level
> of optimization, and we have -flto to achieve this.
>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130114/e2c9e32a/attachment.html>