escha via llvm-dev
2015-Sep-14 21:47 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
I would assume that it’s just considered to be garbage. I feel like any sort of per-pass side data like this should come with absolute minimal contracts, to avoid introducing any more inter-pass complexity. —escha> On Sep 14, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is the contract between passes for the marker bit? I.e. do passes need to "clean up" the marker bit to a predetermined value after they run? (or they need to assume that it might be dirty? (like I think you do below)) > > -- Sean Silva > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:37 AM, escha via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > I’ve been playing around with optimizing performance various passes and noticed something about ADCE: it keeps an Alive set that requires a lot of upkeep time-wise, but if each instruction had a /single bit/ of side data (to represent liveness, solely within the pass), the set wouldn’t be needed. I tested this out and observed a ~1/3 reduction in time in ADCE: 1454ms to 982ms according to a profile over our test suite (for a total of 0.6% compile time savings in our pipeline). > > Are there any other passes that could benefit from having a single bit (or similarly small amount) of per-Instruction metadata local to the pass, i.e. to avoid having to keep a side-Set of instructions that’s only used to test membership of the set (i.e. not iterated over)? Is this sort of thing something reasonable (maybe it could be stuffed in the SubclassData short and exposed via a public API?) > > —escha > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <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/20150914/441edf37/attachment.html>
Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev
2015-Sep-14 21:49 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
On 09/14/2015 02:47 PM, escha via llvm-dev wrote:> I would assume that it’s just considered to be garbage. I feel like > any sort of per-pass side data like this should come with absolute > minimal contracts, to avoid introducing any more inter-pass complexity.I would think this would need to be a verifier error if it were ever non-0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150914/8c334678/attachment.html>
Pete Cooper via llvm-dev
2015-Sep-14 21:58 UTC
[llvm-dev] RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 2:49 PM, Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 09/14/2015 02:47 PM, escha via llvm-dev wrote: >> I would assume that it’s just considered to be garbage. I feel like any sort of per-pass side data like this should come with absolute minimal contracts, to avoid introducing any more inter-pass complexity. > I would think this would need to be a verifier error if it were ever non-0+1 Otherwise every pass which ever needs this bit would have to first zero it out just to be safe, adding an extra walk over the whole functions. Of course otherwise the pass modifying it will have to zero it, which could also be a walk over the whole function. So either way you have lots iterate over, which is why i’m weary of this approach tbh.> _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
Maybe Matching Threads
- RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
- RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
- RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
- RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)
- RFC: speedups with instruction side-data (ADCE, perhaps others?)