[llvm-dev] [RFC] Placing profile name data, and coverage data, outside of object files
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jul 4 13:03:57 PDT 2017
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:54 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Problem
>> -------
>>
>> Instrumentation for PGO and frontend-based coverage places a large amount
>> of
>> data in object files, even though the majority of this data is not needed
>> at
>> run-time. All the data is needlessly duplicated while generating
>> archives, and
>> again while linking. PGO name data is written out into raw profiles by
>> instrumented programs, slowing down the training and code coverage
>> workflows.
>>
>> Here are some numbers from a coverage + RA build of ToT clang:
>>
>> * Size of the build directory: 4.3 GB
>>
>> * Wall time needed to run "clang -help" with an SSD: 0.5 seconds
>>
>> * Size of the clang binary: 725.24 MB
>>
>> * Space wasted on duplicate name/coverage data (*.o + *.a): 923.49 MB
>> - Size contributed by __llvm_covmap sections: 1.02 GB
>> \_ Just within clang: 340.48 MB
>>
>
> We live with this duplication for debug info. In some sense, if the
> overhead is small compared to debug info, should we even bother (i.e., we
> assume that users accommodate debug builds, so that is a reasonable bound
> on the tolerable build directory size). (I don't know the numbers; this
> seems pretty large so maybe it is significant compared to debug info; just
> saying that looking at absolute numbers is misleading here; numbers
> compared to debug info are a closer measure to the user's perceptions)
>
>
> The size of a RelWithDebInfo build directory for the same checkout is 9 GB
> (I'm still just building clang, this time without instrumentation).
>
So it sounds like the 4.3GB build directory you quoted in the OP is
substantially less, so your comment below doesn't make sense. Or was 4.3GB
just the build directory needed for building nothing but the clang binary
and its dependencies? Can you get an apples to apples number (it sounds
like it must have been much more due if the coverage bots had to be turned
off, but it would be useful to get some breakdown and an apples-to-apples
number)
> We (more or less) get away with this because the debug info isn't copied
> into the final binary [1]. We're not getting away with this with coverage.
> E.g we usually store bot artifacts for a while, but we had to shut this
> functionality off almost immediately for our coverage bots because the
> uploads were horrific.
>
> In fact, one overall architectural observation I have is that the most
> complicated part of all this is simply establishing the workflow to plumb
> together data emitted per-TU to a tool that needs that information to do
> some post-processing step on the results of running the binary. That sounds
> a lot like the role of debug info. In fact, having a debugger open a core
> file is precisely equivalent to what llvm-profdata needs to do in this
> regard AFAICT.
>
> So it would be best if possible to piggyback on all the effort that has
> gone into plumbing that data to make debug info work. For example, I know
> that on Darwin there's a fair amount of system-level integration to make
> split dwarf "just work" while keeping debug info out of final binaries.
>
> If there is a not-too-hacky way to piggyback on debug info, that's likely
> to be a really slick solution. For example, debug info could in principle
> (if it doesn't already) contain information about the name of each counter
> in the counter array, so in principle it would be a complete enough
> description to identify each counter.
>
>
> We don't emit debug info for this currently. Is there a reason to?
>
Probably not. My suspicion is that the most feasible solution would be one
where we just store a blob of opaque coverage data in the debug info
section. In theory (but probably not in practice) we could lower the
coverage mapping data to some form of debug info (that's what it really is,
after all; it's basically a very precise sort of debug info that is allowed
to impede optimizations to remain precise), but the effort needed to
harmonize the needs of actual debug info with "debug info lowered from
coverage data" would probably be too messy, if it was possible at all.
-- Sean Silva
>
> I'm not very familiar with DWARF, but I'm imagining something like
> reserving an LLVM vendor-specific DWARF opcode/attribute/whatever and then
> stick a blob of data in there. Presumably we have code somewhere in LLDB
> that is "here's a binary, find debug info for it", and in principle we
> could factor out that code and lift it into an LLVM library
> (libFindDebugInfo) that llvm-profdata could use.
>
>
> This could work for the coverage/name data. There are some really nice
> pieces of Darwin integration (e.g search-with-Spotlight, findDsymForUUID).
> I'll look into this.
>
> - Size contributed by __llvm_prf_names sections: 327.46 MB
>> \_ Just within clang: 106.76 MB
>>
>> => Space wasted within the clang binary: 447.24 MB
>>
>> Running an instrumented clang binary triggers a 143MB raw profile write
>> which
>> is slow even with an SSD. This problem is particularly bad for
>> frontend-based
>> coverage because it generates a lot of extra name data: however, the
>> situation
>> can also be improved for PGO instrumentation.
>>
>> Proposal
>> --------
>>
>> Place PGO name data and coverage data outside of object files. This would
>> eliminate data duplication in *.a/*.o files, shrink binaries, shrink raw
>> profiles, and speed up instrumented programs.
>>
>> In more detail:
>>
>> 1. The frontends get a new `-fprofile-metadata-dir=<path>` option. This
>> lets
>> users specify where llvm will store profile metadata. If the metadata
>> starts to
>> take up too much space, there's just one directory to clean.
>>
>> 2. The frontends continue emitting PGO name data and coverage data in the
>> same
>> llvm::Module. So does LLVM's IR-based PGO implementation. No change here.
>>
>> 3. If the InstrProf lowering pass sees that a metadata directory is
>> available,
>> it constructs a new module, copies the name/coverage data into it, hashes
>> the
>> module, and attempts to write that module to:
>>
>> <metadata-dir>/<module-hash>.bc (the metadata module)
>>
>> If this write operation fails, it scraps the new module: it keeps all the
>> metadata in the original module, and there are no changes from the current
>> process. I.e with this proposal we preserve backwards compatibility.
>>
>
> Based at my experience with Clang's implicit modules, I'm *extremely* wary
> of anything that might cause the compiler to emit a file that the build
> system cannot guess the name of. In fact, having the compiler emit a file
> that is not explicitly listed on the command line is basically just as bad
> in practice (in terms of feasibility of informing the build system about
> it).
>
> As a simple example, ninja simply cannot represent a dependency of this
> type, so if you delete a <metadata-dir>/<module-hash>.bc it won't know
> things need to be rebuilt (and it won't know how to clean it, etc.).
>
> So I would really strongly recommend against doing this.
>
>
> Again, these problems of system integration (in particular build system
> integration) are nasty, and if you can bypass this and piggyback on debug
> info then everything will "just work" because the folks that care about
> making sure that debugging "just works" already did the work for you.
> It might be more work in the short term to do the debug info approach (if
> it is feasible at all), but I can tell you based on the experience with
> implicit modules (and I'm sure you have some experience of your own) that
> there's just going to be a neverending tail of hitches and ways that things
> don't work (or work poorly) due to not having the build system / overall
> system integration right, so it will be worth it in the long run.
>
>
> Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. The build system should keep track of
> where to externalize profile metadata (regardless of whether or not it
> piggybacks on debug info). In addition to the advantages you've listed,
> this would make testing easier.
>
> vedant
>
> [1] ld64:
> 2561 if ( strcmp(sect->segname(), "__DWARF") == 0 ) {
>
>
> 2562 // note that .o file has dwarf
>
>
> 2563 _file->_debugInfoKind = ld::relocatable::File::kDebugInfoDwarf;
>
>
> 2564 // save off iteresting dwarf sections
>
>
> ...
>
> 2571 else if ( strcmp(sect->sectname(), "__debug_str") == 0 )
>
>
> 2572 _file->_dwarfDebugStringSect = sect;
>
>
> 2573 // linker does not propagate dwarf sections to output file
>
>
> 2574 continue;
>
>
>
>>
>> 4. Once the metadata module is written, the name/coverage data are
>> entirely
>> stripped out of the original module. They are replaced by a path to the
>> metadata module:
>>
>> @__llvm_profiling_metadata = "<metadata-dir>/<module-hash>.bc",
>> section "__llvm_prf_link"
>>
>> This allows incremental builds to work properly, which is an important
>> use case
>> for code coverage users. When an object is rebuilt, it gets a fresh link
>> to a
>> fresh profiling metadata file. Although stale files can accumulate in the
>> metadata directory, the stale files cannot ever be used.
>>
>> In an IDE like Xcode, since there's just one target binary per scheme,
>> it's
>> possible to clean the metadata directory by removing the modules which
>> aren't
>> referenced by the target binary.
>>
>> 5. The raw profile format is updated so that links to metadata files are
>> written
>> out in each profile. This makes it possible for all existing
>> llvm-profdata and
>> llvm-cov commands to work, seamlessly.
>>
>> The indexed profile format will *not* be updated: i.e, it will contain a
>> full
>> symbol table, and no links. This simplifies the coverage mapping reader,
>> because
>> a full symbol table is guaranteed to exist before any function records are
>> parsed. It also reduces the amount of coding, and makes it easier to
>> preserve
>> backwards compatibility :).
>>
>> 6. The raw profile reader will learn how to read links, open up the
>> metadata
>> modules it finds links to, and collect name data from those modules.
>>
>> 7. The coverage reader will learn how to read the __llvm_prf_link
>> section, open
>> up metadata modules, and lazily read coverage mapping data.
>>
>> Alternate Solutions
>> -------------------
>>
>> 1. Instead of copying name data into an external metadata module, just
>> copy the
>> coverage mapping data.
>>
>> I've actually prototyped this. This might be a good way to split up
>> patches,
>> although I don't see why we wouldn't want to tackle the name data problem
>> eventually.
>>
>> 2. Instead of emitting links to external metadata modules, modify
>> llvm-cov and
>> llvm-profdata so that they require a path to the metadata directory.
>>
>> The issue with this is that it's way too easy to read stale metadata.
>> It's also
>> less user-friendly, which hurts adoption.
>>
>> 3. Use something other than llvm bitcode for the metadata module format.
>>
>> Since we're mostly writing large binary blobs (compressed name data or
>> pre-encoded source range mapping info), using bitcode shouldn't be too
>> slow, and
>> we're not likely to get better compression with a different format.
>>
>> Bitcode is also convenient, and is nice for backwards compatibility.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------
>>
>> If you've made it this far, thanks for taking a look! I'd appreciate any
>> feedback.
>>
>> vedant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/llvm-dev/attachments/20170704/2f10bc48/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list