[llvm-dev] [CodeGen] CodeSize - TailMerging and BlockPlacement

[Haicheng Wu via llvm-dev]

Hi Hal,

Thank you for your interest.  I haven't received any feedback, but I already started the work.  Some early cleaning work was already committed and more will be posted for review soon.

Best,

Haicheng 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 8:34 PM
To: haicheng at codeaurora.org
Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [CodeGen] CodeSize - TailMerging and BlockPlacement

----- Original Message -----
> From: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:20:22 AM
> Subject: [llvm-dev] [CodeGen] CodeSize - TailMerging and 
> BlockPlacement
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> The code layout that TailMerging (inside BranchFolding) works on is 
> not the final layout optimized based on the branch probability.
>  Generally,
> after BlockPlacement, many new merging opportunities emerge. I did an 
> experiment of adding additional BranchFolding and BlockPlacement after 
> the existing BlockPlacement (i.e., -block-placement  -branch-folder
> -block-placement) targeting an AARch64 backend. Thousands of 
> instructions can be removed in spec2006 benchmarks as shown below. I 
> checked the binaries and did not find any increase of unwanted 
> instructions. The change does not hurt any benchmark with noticeable 
> regression and sometimes results in small improvement (1%-3%).
> 
> 473.astar        -7
> 401.bzip2        -110
> 403.gcc          -13,006
> 445.gobmk        -1,716
> 464.h264ref      -684
> 456.hmmer        -391
> 462.libquantum   -4
> 429.mcf          -4
> 471.omnetpp      -1,980
> 400.perlbench    -4,176
> 458.sjeng        -338
> 450.soplex       -395
> 483.xalancbmk    -4,183
> 447.dealII       -186
> 433.milc         -34
> 444.namd         -104
> 453.povray       -1,785
> 482.sphinx3      -112
> 
> I propose to factor out the relevant code from BranchFolding into a 
> utility, and call it from BlockPlacement whenever the layout is 
> changed.
>   It is similar to D18226 and D18411 which factor tail duplication
>   into a
> utility and call it from BlockPlacement.  Any thoughts, advice, or 
> comments?

Did anyone yet provide you with feedback on this? It seems like a reasonable plan to me.

 -Hal

> 
> Best,
> 
> Haicheng
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 

--
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory