llvm dev - Apr 2014 - [LLVMdev] multithreaded performance disaster with -fprofile-instr-generate (contention on profile counters)

On 2014-Apr-17, at 10:38, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> Another idea is to use stack local counters per function -- synced up with
global counters on entry and exit. the problem with it is for deeply recursive
calls, stack pressure can be too high.
I think they'd need to be synced with global counters before function
calls as well, since any function call can call "exit()".

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014-Apr-17, at 10:38, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> > Another idea is to use stack local counters per function -- synced up
> with global counters on entry and exit. the problem with it is for deeply
> recursive calls, stack pressure can be too high.
>
> I think they'd need to be synced with global counters before function
> calls as well, since any function call can call "exit()".
>
right -- but it might be better to handle this in other ways. For instance
a stack of counters for each frames is maintained. At exit, they are
flushed in a batch. Or simply ignore it in case of program exit .

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140417/285d897f/attachment.html>

On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at
apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2014-Apr-17, at 10:38, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> >
> > Another idea is to use stack local counters per function -- synced up
with global counters on entry and exit. the problem with it is for deeply
recursive calls, stack pressure can be too high.
> 
> I think they'd need to be synced with global counters before function
> calls as well, since any function call can call "exit()".
> 
> right -- but it might be better to handle this in other ways. For instance
a stack of counters for each frames is maintained. At exit, they are flushed in
a batch. Or simply ignore it in case of program exit .
It seems to me like we’re going to have a hard time getting good multithreaded
performance without significant impact on the single-threaded behavior. We might
need to add an option to choose between those. There’s a lot of room for
improvement in the performance with the current instrumentation, so maybe we can
find a way to make things incrementally better in a way that helps both, but
avoiding the multithreaded cache conflicts seems like it’s going to be expensive
in other ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140417/12cde0a2/attachment.html>