llvm dev - Jan 2018 - [lldb-dev] Trying out lld to link windows binaries (using msvc as a compiler)

Yes we've discussed many different ideas for incremental linking, but our
conclusion is that you can only get one of Fast|Simple.  If you want it to
be fast it has to be complicated and if you want it to be simple then it's
going to be slow.

Consider the case where you edit one .cpp file and change this:

int x = 0, y = 7;

to this:

int x = 0;
short y = 7;

Because different instructions operate on shorts vs ints, some of the
instruction encodings will be different and potentially of a different size.

Because of this, the contribution to the .text section from this object
file is going to be a different size.

Because of that, all subsequent object files will start at a different
absolute file address in the final executable.

Because of that, every single symbol in every single object file will need
to be updated in the final PDB.

There are many other things that need to happen as well, but the point is
that trivial change to a cpp file can explode into many changes in the
final PDB.

There are ways to handle this, but they're not simple.  We have some ideas,
but for the moment we are focused on making full linking as fast as
possible because it's much easier and still provides benefits.  We think we
can get it fast enough that it will be acceptable, and that should give us
some extra time to do incremental linking properly.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> About incremental linking, the only thing from my benchmark that needs to
> be incremental is the pdb patching as generating the binary seems faster
> than incremental linking on link.exe, so did anyone propose renaming the
> current binary, writing a new one and then diffing the coff obj and using
> that info to just rewriting that part of the pdb. Or another idea is making
> the build system feed into the linker which files changed so the
> types/debug information can be compared instead of all of them?
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at
google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not a lot.
>>
>> /TIME will show high level timing of the various phases (this is the
same
>> option MSVC uses).
>>
>> If you want anything more detailed than that, vTune or ETW+WPA (
>> https://github.com/google/UIforETW/releases) are probably what
you'll
>> need to do.
>>
>> (We'd definitely love patches to improve performance, or even just
ideas
>> about how to make things faster.  Improving link speed is one of our
>> biggest priorities.)
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:47 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah true, is there any switches to profile the linker?
>>>
>>> On 29 Jan 2018 18:43, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at
google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Part of the reason why lld is so fast is because we map every
input
>>>> file into memory up front and rely on the virtual memory
manager in the
>>>> kernel to make this fast.  Generally speaking, this is a lot
faster than
>>>> opening a file, reading it and processing a file, and closing
the file.
>>>> The downside, as you note, is that it uses a lot of memory.
>>>>
>>>> But there's a catch.  The kernel is smart enough to share
the physical
>>>> memory pages when you map the same file multiple times from
multiple
>>>> processes.  So it only looks like the memory usage is high
because it
>>>> reserves a large amount of address space in each process.  But
the total
>>>> amount of physical memory used will not increase when
additional instances
>>>> of the same file are mapped.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM Leonardo Santagada
<santagada at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I cleaned up my tests and figured that the obj file
generated with
>>>>> problems was only with msvc 2015, so trying again with msvc
2017 I get:
>>>>>
>>>>> lld-link: 4s
>>>>> lld-link /debug: 1m30s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>> lld-link /debug:ghash: 59s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>> link: 13s
>>>>> link /debug:fastlink: 43s and 1gb of ram
>>>>> link specialpdb: 1m10s and 4gb of ram
>>>>> link /debug: 9m16s min and >14gb of ram
>>>>>
>>>>> link incremental: 8s when it works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *specialpdb is created with passing to a set of compilation
units (eg
>>>>> a folder) the same pdb to be written to, so it dedups the
symbols before
>>>>> the final linking, but that does decrease the concurrency
as this step
>>>>> can't be done after linking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is, in the set of patches you guys haven't
upstreamed is
>>>>> there anything that makes compilation uses less memory? Or
just asking more
>>>>> directly, when will those patches make to upstream, or can
I try them? The
>>>>> memory usage of lld-link is a little worrying as we have
around 6-8
>>>>> binaries that we link for windows and they mostly use the
same libraries so
>>>>> 20gb of ram each means we probably can't link them all
together anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tomorrow I will send my tool and changes to lld so more
people can try
>>>>> this out and tell if it helps with their msvc only code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:22 PM, Zachary Turner
<zturner at google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t have pgo numbers. When I build using -flto=thin
the link time
>>>>>> is significantly faster than msvc /ltcg and runtime is
slightly faster, but
>>>>>> I haven’t tested on a large variety of different
workloads, so YMMV. Link
>>>>>> time will definitely be faster though
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This part is only for objects with /Z7 debug
information in them
>>>>>>> right? I think most of the third parties are
either: .lib/obj without debug
>>>>>>> information, the same with information on pdb
files. Rewriting all
>>>>>>> .lib/.obj with /Z7 information seems doable with a
small python script, the
>>>>>>> pdb one is going to be more work, but I always
wanted to know how a pdb
>>>>>>> file is structured so "fun" times ahead.
But yeah printing it out, and
>>>>>>> timing it might be very useful indeed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did anyone tried to compile/link lld-link.exe with
LTO+PGO to see
>>>>>>> how much faster can it get? I might try that as
well, as 10% speed
>>>>>>> improvement might be handy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Zachary Turner
<zturner at google.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look for this code in lld/coff/pdb.cpp
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (Config->DebugGHashes) {
>>>>>>>> ArrayRef<GloballyHashedType> Hashes;
>>>>>>>> std::vector<GloballyHashedType>
OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>> if (Optional<ArrayRef<uint8_t>>
DebugH = getDebugH(File))
>>>>>>>> Hashes = getHashesFromDebugH(*DebugH);
>>>>>>>> else {
>>>>>>>> OwnedHashes =
GloballyHashedType::hashTypes(Types);
>>>>>>>> Hashes = OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the else block there, add a log message that
says “synthesizing
>>>>>>>> .debug$h section for “ + Obj->Name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See how many of these you get. When I build
chrome + all third
>>>>>>>> party libraries this way i get about 100, which
is small enough to still
>>>>>>>> see large performance gains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you have many 3rd party libraries, it may be
necessary to
>>>>>>>> rewrite the .lib files too, not just the .obj
files. Eventually I’ll get
>>>>>>>> around to implementing all of this as well, as
well as better heuristics in
>>>>>>>> lld-link to disable ghash if it’s going to be
slow
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM Leonardo
Santagada <
>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok I went for kind of middle ground
solution, I patch in the obj
>>>>>>>>> files, but as adding a new section
didn't seem to work, I add a "shadow"
>>>>>>>>> section, by editing the pointer to line
number and the virtual size on the
>>>>>>>>> .debug$T section. Although technically
broken, both link.exe and
>>>>>>>>> lld-link.exe don't seem to mind the
alterations and as the shadow .debug$H
>>>>>>>>> is not really a section anymore (its just
some bytes at the end of the
>>>>>>>>> file) it doesn't change anything else
that does matter. With that I could
>>>>>>>>> do my first test with a subset of our code
base, and the results are not
>>>>>>>>> good. I found one of our sources that break
the ghash computation, I will
>>>>>>>>> get more info on this and post a proper bug
report, but I guess its type
>>>>>>>>> information that is generated only by msvc.
The other more alarming problem
>>>>>>>>> is that linking is way slower with the
ghahes... my guess is that we have a
>>>>>>>>> bunch of pdb files for some third party
libraries and calculating those
>>>>>>>>> ghashes takes more time than actual linking
of this small part of the
>>>>>>>>> source (it links in 4s in both link.exe and
lld-link.exe without ghashes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Leonardo
Santagada <
>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We don't generate any .lib as those
don't work well with
>>>>>>>>>> incremental linking (and give zero
advantages when linking AFAIK), and it
>>>>>>>>>> would be pretty easy to have a modern
format for having a .ghash for
>>>>>>>>>> multiple files, something simple like
size prefixed name and then size
>>>>>>>>>> prefixed ghash blobs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:44 PM,
Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We considered that early on, but
most object files actually end
>>>>>>>>>>> up in .lib files so unless there
were a way to connect the objects in the
>>>>>>>>>>> .lib to the corresponding .ghash
files, this would disable ghash usage for
>>>>>>>>>>> a large amount of inputs.
Supporting both is an option, but it adds a bit
>>>>>>>>>>> of complexity and I’m not totally
convinced it’s worth it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:38 AM
Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just had an epiphany: why not
just write a .ghash file and
>>>>>>>>>>>> have lld read those if they
exist for an .obj file?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Seem much simpler than trying
to wire up a 20 year old file
>>>>>>>>>>>> format. I will try to do this,
is something like this acceptable for LLD?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The cool thing is that I can
generate .ghash for .lib or any obj lying
>>>>>>>>>>>> around (maybe even for pdb in
the future).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:32
PM, Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, we should be
able to accept any MSVC .obj file to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLD.  At the very least,
we're not aware of any cases that don't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does your MSVC .obj file
link fine before you add the .debug$H?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
11:23 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, apparently
coff2yaml and yaml2coff are not in a great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place as they both
don't deal well with the fact that you can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlapping sections,
which seems to be what clang-cl produces (the .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section points to the
same place as a later section). Which is not a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big problem for me
particularly because msvc doesn't even generate .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections in .obj.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to put
support for .bss sections in both coff2yaml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and yaml2coff... but I
still can link just fine with my transformations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clang-cl generated
files... what does give me problems is msvc .obj files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you tried to link
one of these?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
8:05 PM, Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah, apparently
.bss has a flag of unitialized data that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not being respected
on the layout of the coff files (it should skip those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections) but I
dunno what to do with .data as it doesn't have a size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (resending as
apparently my pastes generated a ton of hidden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html data and this
message hit the mailinglist limit of 100k)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
>
> Leonardo Santagada
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180129/a4bc13cd/attachment-0001.html>

Does packing obj files in .lib helps linking in any way? My understanding
is that there would be no difference. It could help if I could make a pdb
per lib, but there is no way to do so... Maybe we could implement this on
lld?

On 29 Jan 2018 22:14, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at google.com>
wrote:
> Yes we've discussed many different ideas for incremental linking, but
our
> conclusion is that you can only get one of Fast|Simple.  If you want it to
> be fast it has to be complicated and if you want it to be simple then
it's
> going to be slow.
>
> Consider the case where you edit one .cpp file and change this:
>
> int x = 0, y = 7;
>
> to this:
>
> int x = 0;
> short y = 7;
>
> Because different instructions operate on shorts vs ints, some of the
> instruction encodings will be different and potentially of a different
size.
>
> Because of this, the contribution to the .text section from this object
> file is going to be a different size.
>
> Because of that, all subsequent object files will start at a different
> absolute file address in the final executable.
>
> Because of that, every single symbol in every single object file will need
> to be updated in the final PDB.
>
> There are many other things that need to happen as well, but the point is
> that trivial change to a cpp file can explode into many changes in the
> final PDB.
>
> There are ways to handle this, but they're not simple.  We have some
> ideas, but for the moment we are focused on making full linking as fast as
> possible because it's much easier and still provides benefits.  We
think we
> can get it fast enough that it will be acceptable, and that should give us
> some extra time to do incremental linking properly.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> About incremental linking, the only thing from my benchmark that needs
to
>> be incremental is the pdb patching as generating the binary seems
faster
>> than incremental linking on link.exe, so did anyone propose renaming
the
>> current binary, writing a new one and then diffing the coff obj and
using
>> that info to just rewriting that part of the pdb. Or another idea is
making
>> the build system feed into the linker which files changed so the
>> types/debug information can be compared instead of all of them?
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at
google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not a lot.
>>>
>>> /TIME will show high level timing of the various phases (this is
the
>>> same option MSVC uses).
>>>
>>> If you want anything more detailed than that, vTune or ETW+WPA (
>>> https://github.com/google/UIforETW/releases) are probably what
you'll
>>> need to do.
>>>
>>> (We'd definitely love patches to improve performance, or even
just ideas
>>> about how to make things faster.  Improving link speed is one of
our
>>> biggest priorities.)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:47 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada
at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah true, is there any switches to profile the linker?
>>>>
>>>> On 29 Jan 2018 18:43, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at
google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Part of the reason why lld is so fast is because we map
every input
>>>>> file into memory up front and rely on the virtual memory
manager in the
>>>>> kernel to make this fast.  Generally speaking, this is a
lot faster than
>>>>> opening a file, reading it and processing a file, and
closing the file.
>>>>> The downside, as you note, is that it uses a lot of memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there's a catch.  The kernel is smart enough to
share the physical
>>>>> memory pages when you map the same file multiple times from
multiple
>>>>> processes.  So it only looks like the memory usage is high
because it
>>>>> reserves a large amount of address space in each process. 
But the total
>>>>> amount of physical memory used will not increase when
additional instances
>>>>> of the same file are mapped.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cleaned up my tests and figured that the obj file
generated with
>>>>>> problems was only with msvc 2015, so trying again with
msvc 2017 I get:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lld-link: 4s
>>>>>> lld-link /debug: 1m30s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>>> lld-link /debug:ghash: 59s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>>> link: 13s
>>>>>> link /debug:fastlink: 43s and 1gb of ram
>>>>>> link specialpdb: 1m10s and 4gb of ram
>>>>>> link /debug: 9m16s min and >14gb of ram
>>>>>>
>>>>>> link incremental: 8s when it works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *specialpdb is created with passing to a set of
compilation units (eg
>>>>>> a folder) the same pdb to be written to, so it dedups
the symbols before
>>>>>> the final linking, but that does decrease the
concurrency as this step
>>>>>> can't be done after linking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is, in the set of patches you guys
haven't upstreamed is
>>>>>> there anything that makes compilation uses less memory?
Or just asking more
>>>>>> directly, when will those patches make to upstream, or
can I try them? The
>>>>>> memory usage of lld-link is a little worrying as we
have around 6-8
>>>>>> binaries that we link for windows and they mostly use
the same libraries so
>>>>>> 20gb of ram each means we probably can't link them
all together anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tomorrow I will send my tool and changes to lld so more
people can
>>>>>> try this out and tell if it helps with their msvc only
code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:22 PM, Zachary Turner
<zturner at google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t have pgo numbers. When I build using
-flto=thin the link
>>>>>>> time is significantly faster than msvc /ltcg and
runtime is slightly
>>>>>>> faster, but I haven’t tested on a large variety of
different workloads, so
>>>>>>> YMMV. Link time will definitely be faster though
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM Leonardo Santagada
<
>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This part is only for objects with /Z7 debug
information in them
>>>>>>>> right? I think most of the third parties are
either: .lib/obj without debug
>>>>>>>> information, the same with information on pdb
files. Rewriting all
>>>>>>>> .lib/.obj with /Z7 information seems doable
with a small python script, the
>>>>>>>> pdb one is going to be more work, but I always
wanted to know how a pdb
>>>>>>>> file is structured so "fun" times
ahead. But yeah printing it out, and
>>>>>>>> timing it might be very useful indeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did anyone tried to compile/link lld-link.exe
with LTO+PGO to see
>>>>>>>> how much faster can it get? I might try that as
well, as 10% speed
>>>>>>>> improvement might be handy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Zachary
Turner <
>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Look for this code in lld/coff/pdb.cpp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if (Config->DebugGHashes) {
>>>>>>>>> ArrayRef<GloballyHashedType> Hashes;
>>>>>>>>> std::vector<GloballyHashedType>
OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>>> if (Optional<ArrayRef<uint8_t>>
DebugH = getDebugH(File))
>>>>>>>>> Hashes = getHashesFromDebugH(*DebugH);
>>>>>>>>> else {
>>>>>>>>> OwnedHashes =
GloballyHashedType::hashTypes(Types);
>>>>>>>>> Hashes = OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the else block there, add a log message
that says “synthesizing
>>>>>>>>> .debug$h section for “ + Obj->Name
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See how many of these you get. When I build
chrome + all third
>>>>>>>>> party libraries this way i get about 100,
which is small enough to still
>>>>>>>>> see large performance gains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you have many 3rd party libraries, it
may be necessary to
>>>>>>>>> rewrite the .lib files too, not just the
.obj files. Eventually I’ll get
>>>>>>>>> around to implementing all of this as well,
as well as better heuristics in
>>>>>>>>> lld-link to disable ghash if it’s going to
be slow
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM Leonardo
Santagada <
>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok I went for kind of middle ground
solution, I patch in the obj
>>>>>>>>>> files, but as adding a new section
didn't seem to work, I add a "shadow"
>>>>>>>>>> section, by editing the pointer to line
number and the virtual size on the
>>>>>>>>>> .debug$T section. Although technically
broken, both link.exe and
>>>>>>>>>> lld-link.exe don't seem to mind the
alterations and as the shadow .debug$H
>>>>>>>>>> is not really a section anymore (its
just some bytes at the end of the
>>>>>>>>>> file) it doesn't change anything
else that does matter. With that I could
>>>>>>>>>> do my first test with a subset of our
code base, and the results are not
>>>>>>>>>> good. I found one of our sources that
break the ghash computation, I will
>>>>>>>>>> get more info on this and post a proper
bug report, but I guess its type
>>>>>>>>>> information that is generated only by
msvc. The other more alarming problem
>>>>>>>>>> is that linking is way slower with the
ghahes... my guess is that we have a
>>>>>>>>>> bunch of pdb files for some third party
libraries and calculating those
>>>>>>>>>> ghashes takes more time than actual
linking of this small part of the
>>>>>>>>>> source (it links in 4s in both link.exe
and lld-link.exe without ghashes).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:52 PM,
Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We don't generate any .lib as
those don't work well with
>>>>>>>>>>> incremental linking (and give zero
advantages when linking AFAIK), and it
>>>>>>>>>>> would be pretty easy to have a
modern format for having a .ghash for
>>>>>>>>>>> multiple files, something simple
like size prefixed name and then size
>>>>>>>>>>> prefixed ghash blobs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:44 PM,
Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We considered that early on,
but most object files actually end
>>>>>>>>>>>> up in .lib files so unless
there were a way to connect the objects in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> .lib to the corresponding
.ghash files, this would disable ghash usage for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a large amount of inputs.
Supporting both is an option, but it adds a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>> of complexity and I’m not
totally convinced it’s worth it
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:38
AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just had an epiphany: why
not just write a .ghash file and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have lld read those if they
exist for an .obj file?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seem much simpler than
trying to wire up a 20 year old file
>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. I will try to do
this, is something like this acceptable for LLD?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cool thing is that I
can generate .ghash for .lib or any obj lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> around (maybe even for pdb
in the future).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
8:32 PM, Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, we should
be able to accept any MSVC .obj file to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LLD.  At the very
least, we're not aware of any cases that don't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does your MSVC .obj
file link fine before you add the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
11:23 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, apparently
coff2yaml and yaml2coff are not in a great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place as they both
don't deal well with the fact that you can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlapping
sections, which seems to be what clang-cl produces (the .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section points to
the same place as a later section). Which is not a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big problem for me
particularly because msvc doesn't even generate .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections in .obj.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to
put support for .bss sections in both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coff2yaml and
yaml2coff... but I still can link just fine with my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations
clang-cl generated files... what does give me problems is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msvc .obj files.
Have you tried to link one of these?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26,
2018 at 8:05 PM, Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah,
apparently .bss has a flag of unitialized data that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not being
respected on the layout of the coff files (it should skip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those sections)
but I dunno what to do with .data as it doesn't have a size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (resending as
apparently my pastes generated a ton of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden html
data and this message hit the mailinglist limit of 100k)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo
Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Leonardo Santagada
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180130/da55b2af/attachment.html>

You can make a PDB per lib (consider msvcrtd.pdb which ships with MSVC),
but all these per-lib PDBs would have to be merged into a single master PDB
at the end, so you still can't avoid that final .  In a way, that's
similar
to the idea behind /DEBUG:FASTLINK (keep the debug info in object files to
eliminate the cost of merging types and symbol records) and we know what
the problems with /DEBUG:FASTLINK are.

The PDB generation code in LLD is still completely single threaded, so
that's one area for huge potential gains, but only some parts of the
algorithm are parallelizable.  We're trying to squeeze every last bit of
performance out of the single-threaded case first before we parallelize,
but that option is definitely still there for us.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:35 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at
gmail.com>
wrote:
> Does packing obj files in .lib helps linking in any way? My understanding
> is that there would be no difference. It could help if I could make a pdb
> per lib, but there is no way to do so... Maybe we could implement this on
> lld?
>
> On 29 Jan 2018 22:14, "Zachary Turner" <zturner at
google.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes we've discussed many different ideas for incremental linking,
but our
>> conclusion is that you can only get one of Fast|Simple.  If you want it
to
>> be fast it has to be complicated and if you want it to be simple then
it's
>> going to be slow.
>>
>> Consider the case where you edit one .cpp file and change this:
>>
>> int x = 0, y = 7;
>>
>> to this:
>>
>> int x = 0;
>> short y = 7;
>>
>> Because different instructions operate on shorts vs ints, some of the
>> instruction encodings will be different and potentially of a different
size.
>>
>> Because of this, the contribution to the .text section from this object
>> file is going to be a different size.
>>
>> Because of that, all subsequent object files will start at a different
>> absolute file address in the final executable.
>>
>> Because of that, every single symbol in every single object file will
>> need to be updated in the final PDB.
>>
>> There are many other things that need to happen as well, but the point
is
>> that trivial change to a cpp file can explode into many changes in the
>> final PDB.
>>
>> There are ways to handle this, but they're not simple.  We have
some
>> ideas, but for the moment we are focused on making full linking as fast
as
>> possible because it's much easier and still provides benefits.  We
think we
>> can get it fast enough that it will be acceptable, and that should give
us
>> some extra time to do incremental linking properly.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:07 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> About incremental linking, the only thing from my benchmark that
needs
>>> to be incremental is the pdb patching as generating the binary
seems faster
>>> than incremental linking on link.exe, so did anyone propose
renaming the
>>> current binary, writing a new one and then diffing the coff obj and
using
>>> that info to just rewriting that part of the pdb. Or another idea
is making
>>> the build system feed into the linker which files changed so the
>>> types/debug information can be compared instead of all of them?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at
google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not a lot.
>>>>
>>>> /TIME will show high level timing of the various phases (this
is the
>>>> same option MSVC uses).
>>>>
>>>> If you want anything more detailed than that, vTune or ETW+WPA
(
>>>> https://github.com/google/UIforETW/releases) are probably what
you'll
>>>> need to do.
>>>>
>>>> (We'd definitely love patches to improve performance, or
even just
>>>> ideas about how to make things faster.  Improving link speed is
one of our
>>>> biggest priorities.)
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:47 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah true, is there any switches to profile the linker?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jan 2018 18:43, "Zachary Turner"
<zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Part of the reason why lld is so fast is because we map
every input
>>>>>> file into memory up front and rely on the virtual
memory manager in the
>>>>>> kernel to make this fast.  Generally speaking, this is
a lot faster than
>>>>>> opening a file, reading it and processing a file, and
closing the file.
>>>>>> The downside, as you note, is that it uses a lot of
memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there's a catch.  The kernel is smart enough to
share the
>>>>>> physical memory pages when you map the same file
multiple times from
>>>>>> multiple processes.  So it only looks like the memory
usage is high because
>>>>>> it reserves a large amount of address space in each
process.  But the total
>>>>>> amount of physical memory used will not increase when
additional instances
>>>>>> of the same file are mapped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I cleaned up my tests and figured that the obj file
generated with
>>>>>>> problems was only with msvc 2015, so trying again
with msvc 2017 I get:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lld-link: 4s
>>>>>>> lld-link /debug: 1m30s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>>>> lld-link /debug:ghash: 59s and ~20gb of ram
>>>>>>> link: 13s
>>>>>>> link /debug:fastlink: 43s and 1gb of ram
>>>>>>> link specialpdb: 1m10s and 4gb of ram
>>>>>>> link /debug: 9m16s min and >14gb of ram
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> link incremental: 8s when it works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *specialpdb is created with passing to a set of
compilation units
>>>>>>> (eg a folder) the same pdb to be written to, so it
dedups the symbols
>>>>>>> before the final linking, but that does decrease
the concurrency as this
>>>>>>> step can't be done after linking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question is, in the set of patches you guys
haven't upstreamed is
>>>>>>> there anything that makes compilation uses less
memory? Or just asking more
>>>>>>> directly, when will those patches make to upstream,
or can I try them? The
>>>>>>> memory usage of lld-link is a little worrying as we
have around 6-8
>>>>>>> binaries that we link for windows and they mostly
use the same libraries so
>>>>>>> 20gb of ram each means we probably can't link
them all together anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tomorrow I will send my tool and changes to lld so
more people can
>>>>>>> try this out and tell if it helps with their msvc
only code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:22 PM, Zachary Turner
<zturner at google.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don’t have pgo numbers. When I build using
-flto=thin the link
>>>>>>>> time is significantly faster than msvc /ltcg
and runtime is slightly
>>>>>>>> faster, but I haven’t tested on a large variety
of different workloads, so
>>>>>>>> YMMV. Link time will definitely be faster
though
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM Leonardo
Santagada <
>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This part is only for objects with /Z7
debug information in them
>>>>>>>>> right? I think most of the third parties
are either: .lib/obj without debug
>>>>>>>>> information, the same with information on
pdb files. Rewriting all
>>>>>>>>> .lib/.obj with /Z7 information seems doable
with a small python script, the
>>>>>>>>> pdb one is going to be more work, but I
always wanted to know how a pdb
>>>>>>>>> file is structured so "fun" times
ahead. But yeah printing it out, and
>>>>>>>>> timing it might be very useful indeed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did anyone tried to compile/link
lld-link.exe with LTO+PGO to see
>>>>>>>>> how much faster can it get? I might try
that as well, as 10% speed
>>>>>>>>> improvement might be handy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Zachary
Turner <
>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Look for this code in lld/coff/pdb.cpp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if (Config->DebugGHashes) {
>>>>>>>>>> ArrayRef<GloballyHashedType>
Hashes;
>>>>>>>>>> std::vector<GloballyHashedType>
OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>>>> if
(Optional<ArrayRef<uint8_t>> DebugH = getDebugH(File))
>>>>>>>>>> Hashes = getHashesFromDebugH(*DebugH);
>>>>>>>>>> else {
>>>>>>>>>> OwnedHashes =
GloballyHashedType::hashTypes(Types);
>>>>>>>>>> Hashes = OwnedHashes;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the else block there, add a log
message that says
>>>>>>>>>> “synthesizing .debug$h section for “ +
Obj->Name
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See how many of these you get. When I
build chrome + all third
>>>>>>>>>> party libraries this way i get about
100, which is small enough to still
>>>>>>>>>> see large performance gains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you have many 3rd party libraries,
it may be necessary to
>>>>>>>>>> rewrite the .lib files too, not just
the .obj files. Eventually I’ll get
>>>>>>>>>> around to implementing all of this as
well, as well as better heuristics in
>>>>>>>>>> lld-link to disable ghash if it’s going
to be slow
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM
Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok I went for kind of middle ground
solution, I patch in the obj
>>>>>>>>>>> files, but as adding a new section
didn't seem to work, I add a "shadow"
>>>>>>>>>>> section, by editing the pointer to
line number and the virtual size on the
>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$T section. Although
technically broken, both link.exe and
>>>>>>>>>>> lld-link.exe don't seem to mind
the alterations and as the shadow .debug$H
>>>>>>>>>>> is not really a section anymore
(its just some bytes at the end of the
>>>>>>>>>>> file) it doesn't change
anything else that does matter. With that I could
>>>>>>>>>>> do my first test with a subset of
our code base, and the results are not
>>>>>>>>>>> good. I found one of our sources
that break the ghash computation, I will
>>>>>>>>>>> get more info on this and post a
proper bug report, but I guess its type
>>>>>>>>>>> information that is generated only
by msvc. The other more alarming problem
>>>>>>>>>>> is that linking is way slower with
the ghahes... my guess is that we have a
>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of pdb files for some third
party libraries and calculating those
>>>>>>>>>>> ghashes takes more time than actual
linking of this small part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> source (it links in 4s in both
link.exe and lld-link.exe without ghashes).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:52 PM,
Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't generate any .lib
as those don't work well with
>>>>>>>>>>>> incremental linking (and give
zero advantages when linking AFAIK), and it
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be pretty easy to have a
modern format for having a .ghash for
>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple files, something
simple like size prefixed name and then size
>>>>>>>>>>>> prefixed ghash blobs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:44
PM, Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at google.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We considered that early
on, but most object files actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> end up in .lib files so
unless there were a way to connect the objects in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the .lib to the
corresponding .ghash files, this would disable ghash usage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a large amount of
inputs. Supporting both is an option, but it adds a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit of complexity and I’m
not totally convinced it’s worth it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
11:38 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just had an epiphany:
why not just write a .ghash file and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have lld read those if
they exist for an .obj file?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seem much simpler than
trying to wire up a 20 year old file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> format. I will try to
do this, is something like this acceptable for LLD?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cool thing is that
I can generate .ghash for .lib or any obj lying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around (maybe even for
pdb in the future).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at
8:32 PM, Zachary Turner <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zturner at
google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, we
should be able to accept any MSVC .obj file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to LLD.  At the
very least, we're not aware of any cases that don't work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does your MSVC .obj
file link fine before you add the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .debug$H?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26,
2018 at 11:23 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay,
apparently coff2yaml and yaml2coff are not in a great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place as they
both don't deal well with the fact that you can have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlapping
sections, which seems to be what clang-cl produces (the .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section points
to the same place as a later section). Which is not a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big problem for
me particularly because msvc doesn't even generate .data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections in
.obj.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying
to put support for .bss sections in both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coff2yaml and
yaml2coff... but I still can link just fine with my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations
clang-cl generated files... what does give me problems is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msvc .obj
files. Have you tried to link one of these?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 26,
2018 at 8:05 PM, Leonardo Santagada <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> santagada at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yeah,
apparently .bss has a flag of unitialized data that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
being respected on the layout of the coff files (it should skip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
sections) but I dunno what to do with .data as it doesn't have a size.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (resending
as apparently my pastes generated a ton of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hidden html
data and this message hit the mailinglist limit of 100k)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo
Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo
Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180130/7a8d6c48/attachment.html>