| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The reversion apparently deleted the test/Transforms directory.
Will be re-reverting again.
llvm-svn: 358552
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As it's causing some bot failures (and per request from kbarton).
This reverts commit r358543/ab70da07286e618016e78247e4a24fcb84077fda.
llvm-svn: 358546
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32768
llvm-svn: 302170
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This adds the following to the new PM based inliner in PGO mode:
* Use block frequency analysis to derive callsite's profile count and use
that to adjust thresholds of hot and cold callsites.
* Incrementally update the BFI of the caller after a callee gets inlined
into it. This incremental update is only within an invocation of the run
method - BFI is not preserved across calls to run.
Update the function entry count of the callee after inlining it into a
caller.
* I've tuned the thresholds for the hot and cold callsites using a hacked
up version of the old inliner that explicitly computes BFI on a set of
internal benchmarks and spec. Once the new PM based pipeline stabilizes
(IIRC Chandler mentioned there are known issues) I'll benchmark this
again and adjust the thresholds if required.
Inliner PGO support.
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28331
llvm-svn: 292666
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
most of the inliner test cases.
The inliner involves a bunch of interesting code and tends to be where
most of the issues I've seen experimenting with the new PM lie. All of
these test cases pass, but I'd like to keep some more thorough coverage
here so doing a fairly blanket enabling.
There are a handful of interesting tests I've not enabled yet because
they're focused on the always inliner, or on functionality that doesn't
(yet) exist in the inliner.
llvm-svn: 290592
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When calculating the cost of a call instruction we were applying a heuristic penalty as well as the cost of the instruction itself.
However, when calculating the benefit from inlining we weren't discounting the equivalent penalty for the call instruction that would be removed! This caused skew in the calculation and meant we wouldn't inline in the following, trivial case:
int g() {
h();
}
int f() {
g();
}
llvm-svn: 286814
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
instead of share inline-hint parameter
Summary: Hot callsites should have higher threshold than inline hints. This patch uses separate threshold parameter for hot callsites.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman
Subscribers: Prazek, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22368
llvm-svn: 277860
|
|
|
Summary:
For sample-based PGO, using BFI to calculate callsite count is sometime not accurate. This is because with sampling based approach, if a callsite resides in a hot loop deeply nested in a bunch of cold branches, the callsite's BFI frequency would be inaccurately calculated due to lack of samples in the cold branch.
E.g.
if (A1 && A2 && A3 && ..... && A10) {
for (i=0; i < 100000000; i++) {
callsite();
}
}
Assume that A1 to A100 are all 100% taken, and callsite has 1000 samples and thus is considerred hot. Because the loop's trip count is huge, it's normal that all branches outside the loop has no sample at all. As a result, we can only use static branch probability to derive the the frequency of the loop header. Assuming that static heuristic thinks each branch is 50% taken, then the count calculated from BFI will be 1/(2^10) of the actual value.
In order to get more accurate callsite count, we directly annotate the weight on the call instruction, and directly use it when checking callsite hotness.
Note that this mechanism can also be shared by instrumentation based callsite hotness analysis. The side benefit is that it breaks the dependency from Inliner to BFI as call count is embedded in the IR.
Reviewers: davidxl, eraman, dnovillo
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D22118
llvm-svn: 275073
|
