[llvm-dev] Your help needed: List of LLVM Open Projects 2017

[Sean Silva via llvm-dev]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 1:47 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > Do we have any open projects on LLD?
>> >
>> > I know we usually try to avoid any big "projects" and mainly add/fix
>> things
>> > in response to user needs, but just wondering if somebody has any ideas.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not particularly active in lld anymore, but the last big item I'd
>> like to see implemented is Pettis-Hansen layout.
>> http://perso.ensta-paristech.fr/~bmonsuez/Cours/B6-4/Article
>> s/papers15.pdf
>> (mainly because it improves performances of the final executable).
>> GCC/gold have an implementation of the algorithm that can be used as
>> base. I'll expand if anybody is interested.
>> Side note: I'd like to propose a couple of llvm projects as well, I'll
>> sit down later today and write them.
>>
>
>
> I’m not sure, can you confirm that such layout optimization on ELF
> requires -ffunction-sections?
>

In order for a standard ELF linker to safely be able to reorder sections at
function granularity, -ffunction-sections would be required. This isn't a
problem during LTO since the code generation is set up by the linker :)


>
> Also, for clang on OSX the best layout we could get is to order functions
> in the order in which they get executed at runtime.
>

What the optimal layout may be for given apps is a bit of a separate
question. Right now we're mostly talking about how to plumb everything
together so that we can do the reordering of the final executable.

In fact, standard ELF linking semantics generally require input sections to
be concatenated in command line order (this is e.g. how .init_array/.ctors
build up their arrays of pointers to initializers; a crt*.o file at the
beginning/end has a sentinel value and so the order matters). So the linker
will generally need blessing from the compiler to do most sorts of
reorderings as far as I'm aware.

Other signals besides profile info, such as a startup trace, might be
useful too, and we should make sure we can plug that into the design.
My understanding of the clang on OSX case is based on a comparison of the
`form_by_*` functions in clang/utils/perf-training/perf-helper.py which
offer a relatively simple set of algorithms, so I think the jury is still
out on the best approach (that script also uses a data collection method
that is not part of LLVM's usual instrumentation or sampling workflows for
PGO, so we may not be able to provide the same signals out of the box as
part of our standard offering in the compiler)
I think that once we have this ordering capability integrated more deeply
into the compiler, we'll be able to evaluate more complicated algorithms
like Pettis-Hansen, have access to signals like global profile info, do
interesting call graph analyses, etc. to find interesting approaches.


>
> For FullLTO it is conceptually pretty easy to get profile data we need for
> this, but I'm not sure about the ThinLTO case.
>
> Teresa, Mehdi,
>
> Are there any plans (or things already working!) for getting profile data
> from ThinLTO in a format that the linker can use for code layout? I assume
> that profile data is being used already to guide importing, so it may just
> be a matter of siphoning that off.
>
>
> I’m not sure what kind of “profile information” is needed, and what makes
> it easier for MonolithicLTO compared to ThinLTO?
>

For MonolithicLTO I had in mind that a simple implementation would be:
```
std::vector<std::string> Ordering;
auto Pass = make_unique<LayoutModulePass>(&Ordering);
addPassToLTOPipeline(std::move(Pass))
```

The module pass would just query the profile data directly on IR
datastructures and get the order out. This would require very little
"plumbing".


>
> Or maybe that layout code should be inside LLVM; maybe part of the general
> LTO interface? It looks like the current gcc plugin calls back into gcc for
> the actual layout algorithm itself (function call
> find_pettis_hansen_function_layout) rather than the reordering logic
> living in the linker: https://android.googlesource.com/toolchain/gcc/+/
> 3f73d6ef90458b45bbbb33ef4c2b174d4662a22d/gcc-4.6/function_
> reordering_plugin/function_reordering_plugin.c
>
>
> I was thinking about this: could this be done by reorganizing the module
> itself for LTO?
>

For MonolithicLTO that's another simple approach.


>
> That wouldn’t help non-LTO and ThinLTO though.
>

I think we should ideally aim for something that works uniformly for
Monolithic and Thin. For example, GCC emits special sections containing the
profile data and the linker just reads those sections; something analogous
in LLVM would just happen in the backend and be common to Monolithic and
Thin. If ThinLTO already has profile summaries in some nice form though, it
may be possible to bypass this.

Another advantage of using special sections in the output like GCC does is
that you don't actually need LTO at all to get the function reordering. The
profile data passed to the compiler during per-TU compilation can be
lowered into the same kind of annotations. (though LTO and function
ordering are likely to go hand-in-hand most often for peak-performance
builds).

-- Sean Silva


>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> -- Sean Silva
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Davide
>>
>> "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
>> or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170116/671ec876/attachment.html>