[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [RFC] New Feature Proposal: De-Optimizing Cold Functions using PGO Info

[Hiroshi Yamauchi via cfe-dev]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:23 PM Wenlei He via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I think calling PGSO size opt is probably a bit misleading though. It’s
> more of an adaptive opt strategy, and it can improve performance too due to
> better locality. We have something similar internally for selecting opt
> level based on profile hotness too under AutoFDO.
>
>
>
> Perhaps similar implementations can all be unified under a profile guided
> “adaptive optimization” framework to avoid duplication:
>
>    - A unified way of setting hot/cold cutoff percentile (e.g. through
>    PSI that’s already used by all PGO/FDO).
>    - A unified way of selecting opt strategy for cold functions: default,
>    none, size, minsize.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wenlei
>
>
>
> *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Modi Mo
> via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Reply-To: *Modi Mo <modimo at fb.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 5:55 PM
> *To: *Tobias Hieta <tobias at plexapp.com>, Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"ddevienne at gmail.com" <ddevienne at gmail.com>, llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev (cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] New Feature Proposal: De-Optimizing Cold
> Functions using PGO Info
>
>
>
> FYI David is referring to PGSO (profile-guided size optimization) as it
> exists directly under that name, see: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67120
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D67120&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=KfYo542rDdZQGClmgz-RBw&m=tscXcy0bnqeZPQHl9SiPfgvfUizD33tNurQecbRunKg&s=RvBQN7FNwjsvLgJgV9jlOUCrkLubfH6CtcALRdXOYao&e=>.
> And yeah using PGSO is selecting optsize while this change is selecting
> optnone.
>

PGSO looks at the block-level profile, too.


>
> On 9/9/20, 10:58 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would it make sense to have a flag to select optnone or optsize? We would
> probably also do the tradeoff for a smaller binary.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 19:28 Renato Golin <rengolin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 18:15, Min-Yih Hsu via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> David mentioned in D87337 that LLVM has used similar techniques on code
> size (not sure what he was referencing, my guess will be something related
> to hot-cold code splitting).
>
>
>
> IIUC, it's just using optsize instead of optnone. The idea is that, if the
> code really doesn't run often/at all, then the performance impact of
> reducing the size is negligible, but the size impact is considerable.
>
>
>
> I'd wager that optsize could even be faster than optnone, as it would
> delete a lot of useless code... but not noticeable, as it wouldn't run much.
>
>
>
> This is an idea that we (Verona Language) are interested in, too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20200910/022f4334/attachment.html>