[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] remove the llvm.expect intrinsic

Fri Apr 22 14:33:54 PDT 2016

yes, PGO data should overrule, and it is a common practice. The annotation
can be stale, and the fixed branch prob implied by the annotation does not
help build up the profile counts/frequency that match the real profile.

David

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On Apr 22, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/22/2016 09:20 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> I've proposed removing the llvm.expect intrinsic:
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19300
>>
>> The motivation for this change is in:
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D19299
>>
>> For reference:
>> 1. We created an intrinsic that's only reason for existing is to improve
>> perf, but the intrinsic can harm optimization by interfering with
>> transforms in other passes.
>>
>> I don't follow this at all.  Given expects are eagerly lowered to
>> metadata, where's the interaction?  In particular, the expect lowering
>> overrules any metadata on the associated branch/switch.  This is exactly
>> what you'd expect for a user annotation interacting with PGO data.
>>
>
> I agree that a user annotation should override PGO data.
>
>
> PGO is also a user input: the user is basically saying "I want the code to
> be optimized for *this* use case".
> So interestingly I would have thought the opposite: PGO overrides the
> source code annotation.
> Here are a couple of reasons why:
>  - libraries can be used by different client and what is common in one
> case might not for another.
>  - code evolves, and user can fail to revisit assumption about the common
> case
>  - the user can be wrong, PGO should not (?).
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
>
>
> This is why I initially proposed that builtin_expect() would extend on
> '[un]predictable' metadata rather than 'prof' metadata in D19299.
>
> But I think that's a separate discussion now; we use 'prof' metadata for
> this purpose today, and I'm not trying to change that in these patches. If
> the user-specified representation of builtin_expect() is overwritten by PGO
> data, I think that's a bug independent of the current proposal/patches.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 2. To solve that, we created a pass to always transform the intrinsic
>> into metadata at a very early stage in LLVM. But now every program is
>> paying a compile-time tax (running the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass) for a
>> feature that is rarely used.
>>
>> Er, what cost?  Given this is a single linear pass over the IR - and
>> could actually be made essentially free by checking to see if the module
>> has any uses of expect - I'm suspicious of this compile time argument.
>> Have you actually seen this in profiles?
>>
>
> No - I expect the actual overhead is in the noise. The real objection to
> the LowerExpectIntrinsic pass is that it is completely unnecessary. This
> was raised in the original review. We shouldn't have two mechanisms to
> represent exactly the same thing. This is also why my initial
> implementation for builtin_unpredictable() was rejected:
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D12341
>
> I assumed there was some good reason for LowerExpectIntrinsic to exist, so
> I copied that design. As noted in that review, my assumption was wrong. And
> it was suggested then that we should remove LowerExpectIntrinsic but nobody
> had gotten around to it. With these patches, I'd like to finally fix this.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> A possible front-end replacement transformation for a source-level
>> "builtin_expect()" is in D19299: I think a front-end can always directly
>> create metadata for this kind of programmer hint rather than using an
>> intermediate representation (the intrinsic). Likewise, if there's some
>> out-of-tree IR pass that is creating an llvm.expect, it should be able to
>> create branch weight metadata directly instead.
>>
>> This seems like a reasonable proposal.  The expect intrinsic does give us
>> a mechanism to express value profiling predictions, but we don't appear to
>> actually use that today.  My bias would be to leave it in place, but I'm
>> not going to object strongly if the consensus goes the other way.
>>
>>
>> Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the
>> patches.
>>
>> For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for
>> llvm.expect:
>> https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&m=130997676129580&w=4
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160422/6b4b3fc2/attachment.html>