Reland 877a9f9abec61f06e39f1cd872e37b828139c2d1 since D138654 (parent)
has been fixed with 9ebaf4fef4aac89d4eff08e48185d61bc893f14e and with
8f1e11c5a7d70f96943a72649daa69f152d73e90.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126455
This reverts commit 877a9f9abec61f06e39f1cd872e37b828139c2d1.
It depends on the parent revision 42c2dc401742266da3e0251b6c1ca491f4779963
which needs to be reverted as it broke some buildbots, so reverting both.
The aim of this patch is to minimize the compilation time overhead of
running Function Specialization. It is about 40% slower to run as a
standalone pass (IPSCCP + FuncSpec vs IPSCCP with FuncSpec) according
to my measurements. I compiled the llvm testsuite with NewPM-O3 + LTO
and measured single threaded [user + system] time of IPSCCP and FuncSpec
by passing the '-time-passes' option to lld. Then I compared the two
configurations in terms of Instruction Count of the total compilation
(not of the individual passes) as in https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com.
Geomean for non-LTO builds is -0.25% and LTO is -0.5% approximately.
You can find more info below:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-should-we-enable-function-specialization/61518
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126455
The current implementation of Function Specialization does not allow
specializing more than one arguments per function call, which is a
limitation I am lifting with this patch.
My main challenge was to choose the most suitable ADT for storing the
specializations. We need an associative container for binding all the
actual arguments of a specialization to the function call. We also
need a consistent iteration order across executions. Lastly we want
to be able to sort the entries by Gain and reject the least profitable
ones.
MapVector fits the bill but not quite; erasing elements is expensive
and using stable_sort messes up the indices to the underlying vector.
I am therefore using the underlying vector directly after calculating
the Gain.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119880
A function is basically dead when:
* it has no uses
* it has only self-referencing uses (it's recursive)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119878
Rename option MaxConstantsThreshold to MaxClonesThreshold. Not only is this
more descriptive, this is also in preparation of introducing another threshold
to analyse more than just 1 constant argument as we currently do, and to better
distinguish these options/thresholds.
This is a follow up of D115458 and truncates the worklist of actual arguments
that can be specialised to 'MaxConstantsThreshold' candidates if
MaxConstantsThreshold was exceeded. Thus, this changes the behaviour of option
-func-specialization-max-constants. Before it didn't specialise at all when
this threshold was exceeded, but now it specialises up to MaxConstantsThreshold
candidates from the sorted worklist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115509
Currently, LLParser will create a Function/GlobalVariable forward
reference based on the desired pointer type and then modify it when
it is declared. With opaque pointers, we generally do not know the
correct type to use until we see the declaration.
Solve this by creating the forward reference with a dummy type, and
then performing a RAUW with the correct Function/GlobalVariable when
it is declared. The approach is adopted from
b5b55963f6.
This results in a change to the use list order, which is why we see
test changes on some module passes that are not stable under use list
reordering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104950
This adds a function specialization pass to LLVM. Constant parameters
like function pointers and constant globals are propagated to the callee by
specializing the function.
This is a first version with a number of limitations:
- The pass is off by default, so needs to be enabled on the command line,
- It does not handle specialization of recursive functions,
- It does not yet handle constants and constant ranges,
- Only 1 argument per function is specialised,
- The cost-model could be further looked into, and perhaps related,
- We are not yet caching analysis results.
This is based on earlier work by Matthew Simpson (D36432) and Vinay Madhusudan.
More recently this was also discussed on the list, see:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149380.html.
The motivation for this work is that function specialisation often comes up as
a reason for performance differences of generated code between LLVM and GCC,
which has this enabled by default from optimisation level -O3 and up. And while
this certainly helps a few cpu benchmark cases, this also triggers in real
world codes and is thus a generally useful transformation to have in LLVM.
Function specialisation has great potential to increase compile-times and
code-size. The summary from some investigations with this patch is:
- Compile-time increases for short compile jobs is high relatively, but the
increase in absolute numbers still low.
- For longer compile-jobs, the extra compile time is around 1%, and very much
in line with GCC.
- It is difficult to blame one thing for compile-time increases: it looks like
everywhere a little bit more time is spent processing more functions and
instructions.
- But the function specialisation pass itself is not very expensive; it doesn't
show up very high in the profile of the optimisation passes.
The goal of this work is to reach parity with GCC which means that eventually
we would like to get this enabled by default. But first we would like to address
some of the limitations before that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93838
