[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] add Function Attribute to disable optimization

Sean Silva silvas at purdue.edu
Thu Jul 18 14:29:14 PDT 2013 

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM, <Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net> wrote:

> So..
> I have investigated more on how a new function attribute to disable
> optimization on a per-function basis could be implemented.
> At the current state, with the lack of specific support from the pass
> managers I found two big problems when trying to implement a prototype
> implementation of the new attribute.
>
> Here are the problems found:
> 1) It is not safe to disable some transform passes in the backend.
> It looks like there are some unwritten dependences between passes and
> disrupting the sequence of passes to run may result in unexpected crashes
> and/or assertion failures;
>

This sounds like a bug. It's probably worth bringing up as its own
discussion on llvmdev if it is extremely prevalent, or file PR's (or send
patches fixing it!) if it is just a few isolated cases.


> 2)  The fact that pass managers are not currently designed to support
> per-function optimization makes it difficult to find a reasonable way to
> implement this new feature.
>
> About point 2. the Idea that came in my mind consisted in making passes
> aware of the 'noopt' attribute.
> In my experiment:
>  - I added a virtual method called 'mustAlwaysRun' in class Pass that
> 'returns true if it is not safe to disable this pass'.
> If a pass does not override the default implementation of that method,
> then by default it will always return true (i.e. the pass "must
> always run" pass even when attribute 'noopt' is specified).
>  - I then redefined in override that method on all the optimization passes
> that could have been safely turned off when attribute noopt was present.
> In my experiment, I specifically didn't disable Module Passes;
>  - Then I modified the 'doInitialize()' 'run*()' and 'doFinalize' methods
> in Pass Manger to check for both the presence of attribute noopt AND the
> value returned by method 'mustAlwaysRun' called on the current pass
> instance.
>
> That experiment seemed to "work" on a few tests and benchmarks.
> However:
>  a) 'noopt' wouldn't really imply no optimization, since not all codegen
> optimization passes can be safely disabled. As a result, the assembly
> produced for noopt functions had few differences with respect to the
> assembly generated for the same functions at -O0;
>  b) I don't particularly like the idea of making passes "aware" of the
> 'noopt' attribute. However, I don't know if there is a reasonable way to
> implement the noopt attribute without having to re-design how pass
> managers work.
>

A redesign of the pass manager has been on the table for a while and the
need seems more pressing daily. Definitely make sure that this use case is
brought up in any design discussions for the new pass manager.

-- Sean Silva


>   c)  Because of a. and b.,  I am concerned that a change like the one
> described above won't be accepted. If so however, I would be really
> interested in the feedback from the community. Maybe there are better ways
> to implement 'noopt' which I don't know/didn't think about?
>
> As I said, I am not very happy with the proposed solution and any feedback
> would be really appreciated at this point.
>
> By the way, here is how I thought the 'noopt' proposal could have been
> contributed in terms of patches:
>
> [LLVM IR][Patch 1]
> ================
> This patch extends the IR adding a new attribute called 'noopt'.
> Below, is a sequence of steps which describes how to implement this patch.
>
> 1) Add a definition for attribute 'noopt' in File llvm/IR/Attribute.h;
> 2) Teach how attribute 'noopt' should be encoded and also how to print it
> out
>    as a string value (File lib/IR/Attributes.cpp);
> 2b) Add a new enum value for the new attribute in enum LLVMAttribute
>     (File "include/llvm-c/Core.h");
> 3) The new attribute is a function attribute;
>    Teach the verifier pass that 'noopt' is a function attribute;
>    Add checks in method VerifyAttributeTypes() (File lib/IR/Verifier.cpp):
>    * NoOpt is a function-only attribute;
>    * Assert if NoOpt is used in the same context as alwaysinline;
>    * Assert if NoOpt is used in the same context as OptimizeForSize
> (needed?);
>    * Assert if NoOpt is used in the same context as MinSize (needed?).
> 4) Add a LLVM test in test/Feature to verify that we correctly disassemble
>    the new function attribute (see for example file cold.ll);
> 5) Teach the AsmParser how to parse the new attribute:
>  * Add a new token for the new attribute noopt;
>  * Add rules to parse the new token;
> 6) Add a description of the new attribute in "docs/LangRef.rst";
>
> [LLVM][Opt][Patch 2]
> ==================
> This patch implements the required changes to passes and pass managers.
> Below, is a sequence of steps which describes how to implement this patch.
>
> 1) Make the new inliner aware of the new flag.
>  * In lib/Transforms/IPO/Inliner.cpp:
>    ** do not inline the callee if it is not always_inline and the caller
> is marked 'noopt'.
>  * No other changes are required since 'noopt' already implies 'noinline'.
> 2) Tell the pass manager which transform passes can be safely disabled
> with 'noopt'.
>
> [CLANG][Patch 3]
> ===============
> This patch teaches clang how to parse and generate code for functions that
> are marked with attribute 'noopt'.
>
> 1) Lex
>  * Add a new token for the 'noopt' keyword.
>  * That keyword is for a function attribute.
> 2) Sema
>  * Add a rule to handle the case where noopt is passed as function
> attribute.
>  * check that the attribute does not take extra arguments.
>  * check that the attribute is associated to a function declaration.
>  * Add the attribute to the IR Set of Attributes.
> 3) CodeGen
>  * noopt implies 'noinline.
>  * noopt always wins over always_inline
>  * noopt does not win over 'naked': naked functions only contain asm
>    statements. This attribute is only valid for ARM, AVX, MCORE, RL78, RX
> and
>    SPU to indicate that the specified function does not need
> prologue/epilogue
>    sequence generated by the compiler. (NOTE: this constraint can be
> removed).
> 4) Add clang tests:
>  * in test/Sema:
>    ** Verify that noopt only applies to functions. (-cc1 -fsyntax-only
> -verify)
>  * in test/CodeGen:
>    ** Check that noopt implies noinline
>    ** Check combinations of noopt and noinline and always_inline
>
>
> Andrea Di Biagio
> SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group.
>
> Andrea DiBiagio/SN R&D/BS/UK/SCEE wrote on 25/06/2013 15:20:12:
>
> > From: Andrea DiBiagio/SN R&D/BS/UK/SCEE
> > To: Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>
> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Date: 25/06/2013 15:20
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] add Function Attribute to disable
> optimization
> >
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > > From: Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>
> > > > This proposal is to create a new function-level attribute which
> would tell
> > > > the compiler to not to perform any optimizing transformations on the
> > > > specified function.
> > >
> > > What about module passes? Do you want to disable all module passes in
> a
> > > TU which contains a single one of these? I'll be unhappy if we need to
>
> > > litter checks throughout the module passes that determine whether a
> > > given instruction is inside an unoptimizable function or not. Saying
> > > that module passes are exempt from checking the 'noopt' attribute is
> > > fine to me, but then somebody needs to know how to module passes (and
> > > users may be surprised to discover that adding such an annotation to
> one
> > > function will cause seemingly-unrelated functions to become less
> optimized).
>
> > Right, module passes are a difficult case.
> > I understand your point. I think ignoring the `noopt' attribute (or
> > whatever we want to call it) may be the best approach in this case:
> > it avoid the problems you describe but should still be sufficient
> > for the purposes we care about. I am currently studying the module
> > passes in more details to be certain about this.
>
> > Thanks for the useful feedback,
> > Andrea Di Biagio
> > SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group
> >
> > > > The use-case is to be able to selectively disable optimizations when
> > > > debugging a small number of functions in a compilation unit to
> provide an
> > > > -O0-like quality of debugging in cases where compiling the whole
> unit at
> > > > anything less than full optimization would make the program run too
> > > > slowly.  A useful secondary-effect of this feature would be to allow
> users
> > > > to temporarily work-around optimization bugs in LLVM without having
> to
> > > > reduce the optimization level for the whole compilation unit,
> however we
> > > > do not consider this the most important use-case.
> > > >
> > > > Our suggestion for the name for this attribute is "optnone" which
> seems to
> > > > be in keeping with the existing "optsize" attribute, although it
> could
> > > > equally be called "noopt" or something else entirely.  It would be
> exposed
> > > > to Clang users through __attribute__((optnone)) or [[optnone]].
> > > >
> > > > I would like to discuss this proposal with the rest of the community
> to
> > > > share opinions and have feedback on this.
> > > >
> > > > ===================================================
> > > > Interactions with the existing function attributes:
> > > >
> > > > LLVM allows to decorate functions with 'noinline', alwaysinline' and
> > > > 'inlinehint'.  We think that it makes sense for 'optnone' to
> implicitly
> > > > imply 'noinline' (at least from a user's point of view) and
> therefore
> > > > 'optnone' should be considered incompatible with 'alwaysinline' and
> > > > 'inlinehint'.
> > > >
> > > > Example:
> > > > __attribute__((optnone, always_inline))
> > > > void foo() { ... }
> > > >
> > > > In this case we could make 'optnone' override 'alwaysinline'. The
> effect
> > > > would be that 'alwaysinline' wouldn't appear in the IR if 'optnone'
> is
> > > > specified.
> > > >
> > > > Under the assumption that 'optnone' implies 'noinline', other things
> that
> > > > should be taken into account are:
> > > > 1) functions marked as 'optnone' should never be considered as
> potential
> > > > candidates for inlining;
> > > > 2) the inliner shouldn't try to inline a function if the call site
> is in a
> > > > 'optnone' function.
> > > >
> > > > Point 1 can be easily achieved by simply pushing attribute
> 'noinline' on
> > > > the list of function attributes if 'optnone' is used.
> > > > point 2 however would probably require to teach the Inliner about
> > > > 'optnone' and how to deal with it.
> > > >
> > > > As in the case of 'alwaysinline' and 'inlinehint', I think 'optnone'
> > > > should also override 'optsize'/'minsize'.
> > > >
> > > > Last (but not least), implementing 'optnone' would still require
> changes
> > > > in how optimizations are run on functions. This last part is
> probably the
> > > > hardest part since the current optimizer does not allow the level of
> > > > flexibility required by 'optnone'.  It seems it would either require
> some
> > > > modifications to the Pass Manager or we would have to make
> individual
> > > > passes aware of the attribute.  Neither of these solutions seem
> > > > particularly attractive to me, so I'm open to any suggestions!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Andrea Di Biagio
> > > > SN Systems - Sony Computer Entertainment Group
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> **********************************************************************
> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended
> > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed.
> > > > If you have received this email in error please notify
> postmaster at scee.net
> > > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked
> for
> > > > all known viruses.
> > > > Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
> > > > Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP,
> United
> > > > Kingdom
> > > > Registered in England: 3277793
> > > >
> **********************************************************************
> > > >
> > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > > > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> > notify postmaster at scee.net
> > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked
> > for all known viruses.
> > Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
> > Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United
> Kingdom
> > Registered in England: 3277793
> > **********************************************************************
> >
> > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster at scee.net
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for
> all known viruses.
> Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
> Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United
> Kingdom
> Registered in England: 3277793
> **********************************************************************
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130718/6c74788a/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list