[llvm-dev] RFC: Switching to the new pass manager by default

[Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev]

I thought most of the extremely superlinear asserts were already behind
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS, but we can add this one if you have a test case. Could
you file a bug w/ a test case? I'd also be happy to try and just make the
verify a bit less egregious. But I don't have that version of SPEC....

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:16 PM Chad Rosier <mcrosier at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> Sorry, by debug build I actually meant asserts enabled.  Thus, this issue
> can show up in either a debug or release build, if asserts are enabled.
>
> On 10/26/2017 4:05 PM, Chad Rosier via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Chandler/All,
>
> We've just started testing the new pass manager this week and we ran into
> a 548x slowdown (i.e., 6.28s to 3443.83s) for one of the files from
> SPEC2017/blender.  The issue arises only in debug builds due to the
> numerous calls to RefSCC::verify() and SCC::verify() in the LazyCallGraph
> implementation.  Would it make sense to start predicating these calls with
> the EXPENSIVE_CHECKS macro, rather than NDEBUG?
>
>  Chad
>
> On 10/18/2017 2:50 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Greetings everyone!
>
> The new pass manager is getting extremely close to the point where I'm not
> aware of any significant outstanding work needed, and I'd like to see what
> else would be needed to enable it by default. Here are the current
> functionality I'm aware of outstanding:
>
> 1) Does not do non-trivial loop unswitching. Majority of this is in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D34200 but will need one or two small follow-ups.
>
> 2) Currently, sanitizers don't work correctly with it. Thanks to the work
> of others, the missing infrastructure has been added and I'll send a patch
> to wire this up this week.
>
> 3) Missing support for 'optnone'. I've been working on this, but the
> existing testing wasn't as thorough as I wanted, so it is going slowly.
> I've got about 1/4 of this implemented and should have patches this week or
> next.
>
> 4) Missing opt-bisect (or similar) facility. This looks pretty trivial to
> add, but I've not even started. If anyone is interested in it, go for it.
> We might even be able to do something simpler using the generic debug
> counters and get equivalent functionality.
>
> ... that's it?
>
> Optimization quality / run-time performance:
> - We've been using it at Google extensively and are very happy with the
> optimization quality. Benchmarks look *very* good here.
> - More data from other users would be important.
> - You can try it out with `-fexperimental-new-pass-manager` to Clang
>
> Compile-time performance:
> - Sometimes *much* better due to cached analyses.
> - Sometimes worse, typically due to more / different inlining in turn
> running main pipeline (GVN + InstCombine) more times or over more code.
> - Overall somewhat a wash, but the increased compile times typically due
> to the optimizer "trying" harder, so not too concerning on our end.
> - Again, more feedback from other users good:
> `-fexperimental-new-pass-manager` to Clang
>
> Once the four missing things land, I'll also happily work on collecting
> some of the basics on the test-suite and CTMark. But I suspect more "in the
> wild" data would really be useful here given the significance of the change.
>
> Thoughts? What else (beyond the four items above and feedback on run-time
> and compile-time) would folks like to see?
>
> Once this happens, I'll also be preparing some batch, mechanical updates
> to the test suite to primarily use the new pass manager. Also there is lots
> of documentation updates that will be needed here.
>
> -Chandler
>
> PS: I'll be sending a note to cfe-dev as a "heads up" about this
> discussion as in some ways, the default flip is mostly a Clang default
> flip. But hopefully our doc updates will trigger this being "perceived" as
> the default for other frontends, and I'll try to reach out to other major
> frontends as well (Swift and Rust are on my radar, and I've already started
> talking with Philip Reames about their Falcon JIT).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://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/20171026/bf625e69/attachment-0001.html>