| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
entire SCC before iterating on newly-introduced call edges resulting
from any inlined function bodies.
This more closely matches the behavior of the old PM's inliner. While it
wasn't really clear to me initially, this behavior is actually essential
to the inliner behaving reasonably in its current design.
Because the inliner is fundamentally a bottom-up inliner and all of its
cost modeling is designed around that it often runs into trouble within
an SCC where we don't have any meaningful bottom-up ordering to use. In
addition to potentially cyclic, infinite inlining that we block with the
inline history mechanism, it can also take seemingly simple call graph
patterns within an SCC and turn them into *insanely* large functions by
accidentally working top-down across the SCC without any of the
threshold limitations that traditional top-down inliners use.
Consider this diabolical monster.cpp file that Richard Smith came up
with to help demonstrate this issue:
```
template <int N> extern const char *str;
void g(const char *);
template <bool K, int N> void f(bool *B, bool *E) {
if (K)
g(str<N>);
if (B == E)
return;
if (*B)
f<true, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
else
f<false, N + 1>(B + 1, E);
}
template <> void f<false, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<false, 0>(B, E); }
template <> void f<true, MAX>(bool *B, bool *E) { return f<true, 0>(B, E); }
extern bool *arr, *end;
void test() { f<false, 0>(arr, end); }
```
When compiled with '-DMAX=N' for various values of N, this will create an SCC
with a reasonably large number of functions. Previously, the inliner would try
to exhaust the inlining candidates in a single function before moving on. This,
unfortunately, turns it into a top-down inliner within the SCC. Because our
thresholds were never built for that, we will incrementally decide that it is
always worth inlining and proceed to flatten the entire SCC into that one
function.
What's worse, we'll then proceed to the next function, and do the exact same
thing except we'll skip the first function, and so on. And at each step, we'll
also make some of the constant factors larger, which is awesome.
The fix in this patch is the obvious one which makes the new PM's inliner use
the same technique used by the old PM: consider all the call edges across the
entire SCC before beginning to process call edges introduced by inlining. The
result of this is essentially to distribute the inlining across the SCC so that
every function incrementally grows toward the inline thresholds rather than
allowing the inliner to grow one of the functions vastly beyond the threshold.
The code for this is a bit awkward, but it works out OK.
We could consider in the future doing something more powerful here such as
prioritized order (via lowest cost and/or profile info) and/or a code-growth
budget per SCC. However, both of those would require really substantial work
both to design the system in a way that wouldn't break really useful
abstraction decomposition properties of the current inliner and to be tuned
across a reasonably diverse set of code and workloads. It also seems really
risky in many ways. I have only found a single real-world file that triggers
the bad behavior here and it is generated code that has a pretty pathological
pattern. I'm not worried about the inliner not doing an *awesome* job here as
long as it does *ok*. On the other hand, the cases that will be tricky to get
right in a prioritized scheme with a budget will be more common and idiomatic
for at least some frontends (C++ and Rust at least). So while these approaches
are still really interesting, I'm not in a huge rush to go after them. Staying
even closer to the existing PM's behavior, especially when this easy to do,
seems like the right short to medium term approach.
I don't really have a test case that makes sense yet... I'll try to find a
variant of the IR produced by the monster template metaprogram that is both
small enough to be sane and large enough to clearly show when we get this wrong
in the future. But I'm not confident this exists. And the behavior change here
*should* be unobservable without snooping on debug logging. So there isn't
really much to test.
The test case updates come from two incidental changes:
1) We now visit functions in an SCC in the opposite order. I don't think there
really is a "right" order here, so I just update the test cases.
2) We no longer compute some analyses when an SCC has no call instructions that
we consider for inlining.
llvm-svn: 297374
|
|
|
analyses when we're about to break apart an SCC.
We can't wait until after breaking apart the SCC to invalidate things:
1) Which SCC do we then invalidate? All of them?
2) Even if we invalidate all of them, a newly created SCC may not have
a proxy that will convey the invalidation to functions!
Previously we only invalidated one of the SCCs and too late. This led to
stale analyses remaining in the cache. And because the caching strategy
actually works, they would get used and chaos would ensue.
Doing invalidation early is somewhat pessimizing though if we *know*
that the SCC structure won't change. So it turns out that the design to
make the mutation API force the caller to know the *kind* of mutation in
advance was indeed 100% correct and we didn't do enough of it. So this
change also splits two cases of switching a call edge to a ref edge into
two separate APIs so that callers can clearly test for this and take the
easy path without invalidating when appropriate. This is particularly
important in this case as we expect most inlines to be between functions
in separate SCCs and so the common case is that we don't have to so
aggressively invalidate analyses.
The LCG API change in turn needed some basic cleanups and better testing
in its unittest. No interesting functionality changed there other than
more coverage of the returned sequence of SCCs.
While this seems like an obvious improvement over the current state, I'd
like to revisit the core concept of invalidating within the CG-update
layer at all. I'm wondering if we would be better served forcing the
callers to handle the invalidation beforehand in the cases that they
can handle it. An interesting example is when we want to teach the
inliner to *update and preserve* analyses. But we can cross that bridge
when we get there.
With this patch, the new pass manager an build all of the LLVM test
suite at -O3 and everything passes. =D I haven't bootstrapped yet and
I'm sure there are still plenty of bugs, but this gives a nice baseline
so I'm going to increasingly focus on fleshing out the missing
functionality, especially the bits that are just turned off right now in
order to let us establish this baseline.
llvm-svn: 290664
|
