The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is another reason. David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they > > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just > ELF. > > :) > > Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that > handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. > But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system > versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a > plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not > sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, > just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate > objects produced by ThinLTO. > > Thanks, > Teresa > > > > > -eric > > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li > >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. > >> >> > >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this > >> >> requirement? > >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? > >> > > >> > > >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it > clearer? > >> > >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular > >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. > >> > >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these > >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd > >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as > >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than > >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. > >> > >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When > >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. > >> > >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but > >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a > >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does > >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately > >> on an -flto link. > >> > >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When > >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the > >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. > >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not > >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r > >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO > >> until the full link step. > >> > >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Teresa > >> > >> > > >> > David > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Alex > >> >> > >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, > looking > >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. > >> >> > Thanks! > >> >> > Teresa > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. Background > >> >> > can > >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0) > >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and > >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes a > >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream > >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by default. > >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require frequent > >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that part > we > >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed > >> >> > staged > >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ThinLTO Overview > >> >> > =============> >> >> > > >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following > is a > >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. > >> >> > > >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for improving > >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations across > >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to > >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two solutions > >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is > currently > >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural > >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has > limitations > >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new > >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal of > >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the > same > >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of > its > >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group decision > is > >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at > >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale > >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be razor > >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal > >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed > >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, > enabling > >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also > >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from early > >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with > >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much of > >> >> > the > >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to in > >> >> > the > >> >> > following implementation plan: > >> >> > > >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) > >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) > >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Implementation Plan > >> >> > ===============> >> >> > > >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support > that > >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be > staged. > >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage > contains a > >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. > The > >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, which > >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes > >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the > >> >> > main > >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. > >> >> > > >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very > >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large apps > to > >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast commits > for > >> >> > these implementation stages. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation > >> >> > ------------------------------- > >> >> > > >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: > >> >> > > >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when > >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC > >> >> > pass > >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for > linking > >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. This > >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break that, > we > >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen > and > >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, > >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, > removing > >> >> > the circular dependence. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: > >> >> > > >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily > >> >> > interact > >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the > phase-1 > >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a symbol > >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without > >> >> > requiring > >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across files > >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still > >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link > step). > >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the > >> >> > following is a high-level overview. > >> >> > > >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode > >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist > >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I plan > to > >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file > >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. > >> >> > Specifically, > >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) > and > >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). > >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under “-fthinlto > >> >> > -c” > >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. > >> >> > > >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, > >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates > >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, > since > >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol > >> >> > table > >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent > >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc > section > >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold and > to > >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. > >> >> > > >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF > >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure > >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- > >> >> > > >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the ThinLTO > >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO > >> >> > functional > >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing binaries. > It > >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g > >> >> > efficient > >> >> > with ThinLTO. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: > >> >> > > >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options to > >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the > >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. > >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) will > >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and > >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the appropriate > >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option will > be > >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 > thin > >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ > >> >> > tool > >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: > >> >> > > >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to > perform > >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined > >> >> > function > >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the normal > >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone > >> >> > llvm-lto > >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and > >> >> > plugin. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: > >> >> > > >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including > >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under the > >> >> > new > >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a Linker > >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions > into > >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and enable > >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: > >> >> > > >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function > >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a > >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc > section > >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of > >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary sections > >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function lookup. > >> >> > > >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an > >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the > >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains that > >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently > locate > >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains > >> >> > summary > >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing such > as > >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to > >> >> > help > >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this section > >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be > >> >> > marked > >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version checking. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: > >> >> > > >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other > modules, > >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be off > by > >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: > >> >> > > >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to import/deserialize > >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing lazy > >> >> > streamer support). > >> >> > > >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import > and > >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. > >> >> > > >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific symbol > >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory > >> >> > initially, > >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming > bitcode > >> >> > out and back in again after importing. > >> >> > > >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and > >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported > >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. > Statics > >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent ways. > >> >> > > >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that > were > >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: > >> >> > > >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO > via > >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass > includes > >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), import > >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker routines > >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and > >> >> > verification. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > g. Backend Driver: > >> >> > > >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a > makefile > >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel make. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements > >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > > >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to > work, > >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance > and > >> >> > usability. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: > >> >> > > >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of > module-level > >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all > >> >> > function > >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level > >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be > >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, > >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > b. Import Tuning: > >> >> > > >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will > >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different > types > >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in the > >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional heavier-weight > >> >> > IPA > >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary and > >> >> > callsite context. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: > >> >> > > >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are > >> >> > unlikely > >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 > thin > >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile data) > >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. > >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be > suppressed. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: > >> >> > > >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the > >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the mapping > >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. Additional > >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to > >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build > >> >> > cluster. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: > >> >> > > >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or > >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation of > >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. This > can > >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol > table > >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support > for > >> >> > incremental backend compiles. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | > >> >> > 408-460-2413 > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list > >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | > 408-460-2413 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LLVM Developers mailing list > >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > -- > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150514/a29d04f5/attachment.html>
I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. We have to support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on something that just binutils uses isn't particularly friendly here. I also can't imagine how it's necessary for any of the lto aspects as currently written in the proposal. -eric On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote:> The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil > tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. > 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is > another reason. > > David > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they >> > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just >> ELF. >> > :) >> >> Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that >> handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. >> But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system >> versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a >> plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not >> sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, >> just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate >> objects produced by ThinLTO. >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> > >> > -eric >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li >> >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg < >> alexr at leftfield.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this >> >> >> requirement? >> >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it >> clearer? >> >> >> >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular >> >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. >> >> >> >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these >> >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd >> >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as >> >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than >> >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. >> >> >> >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When >> >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. >> >> >> >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but >> >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a >> >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does >> >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately >> >> on an -flto link. >> >> >> >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When >> >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the >> >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. >> >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not >> >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r >> >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO >> >> until the full link step. >> >> >> >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Teresa >> >> >> >> > >> >> > David >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com >> > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, >> looking >> >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. >> >> >> > Thanks! >> >> >> > Teresa >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. Background >> >> >> > can >> >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0) >> >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and >> >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes a >> >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream >> >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by >> default. >> >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require >> frequent >> >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that part >> we >> >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed >> >> >> > staged >> >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ThinLTO Overview >> >> >> > =============>> >> >> > >> >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following >> is a >> >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for >> improving >> >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations >> across >> >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to >> >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two >> solutions >> >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is >> currently >> >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural >> >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has >> limitations >> >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new >> >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal >> of >> >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the >> same >> >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of >> its >> >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group decision >> is >> >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at >> >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale >> >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be >> razor >> >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal >> >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed >> >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, >> enabling >> >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also >> >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from >> early >> >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with >> >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to in >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > following implementation plan: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) >> >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) >> >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Implementation Plan >> >> >> > ===============>> >> >> > >> >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support >> that >> >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be >> staged. >> >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage >> contains a >> >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. >> The >> >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, >> which >> >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes >> >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the >> >> >> > main >> >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very >> >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large >> apps to >> >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast commits >> for >> >> >> > these implementation stages. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation >> >> >> > ------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when >> >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC >> >> >> > pass >> >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for >> linking >> >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. This >> >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break that, >> we >> >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen >> and >> >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, >> >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, >> removing >> >> >> > the circular dependence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily >> >> >> > interact >> >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the >> phase-1 >> >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a >> symbol >> >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without >> >> >> > requiring >> >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across files >> >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still >> >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link >> step). >> >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the >> >> >> > following is a high-level overview. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode >> >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist >> >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I plan >> to >> >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file >> >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. >> >> >> > Specifically, >> >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) >> and >> >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). >> >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under “-fthinlto >> >> >> > -c” >> >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, >> >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates >> >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, >> since >> >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol >> >> >> > table >> >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent >> >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc >> section >> >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold >> and to >> >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF >> >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the >> ThinLTO >> >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO >> >> >> > functional >> >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing >> binaries. It >> >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g >> >> >> > efficient >> >> >> > with ThinLTO. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options to >> >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the >> >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. >> >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) will >> >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and >> >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the appropriate >> >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option >> will be >> >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 >> thin >> >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ >> >> >> > tool >> >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to >> perform >> >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined >> >> >> > function >> >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the >> normal >> >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone >> >> >> > llvm-lto >> >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and >> >> >> > plugin. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including >> >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under the >> >> >> > new >> >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a >> Linker >> >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions >> into >> >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and >> enable >> >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function >> >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a >> >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc >> section >> >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of >> >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary sections >> >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function >> lookup. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an >> >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the >> >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains that >> >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently >> locate >> >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains >> >> >> > summary >> >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing >> such as >> >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to >> >> >> > help >> >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this section >> >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be >> >> >> > marked >> >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version checking. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other >> modules, >> >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be >> off by >> >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to >> import/deserialize >> >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing >> lazy >> >> >> > streamer support). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import >> and >> >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific >> symbol >> >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory >> >> >> > initially, >> >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming >> bitcode >> >> >> > out and back in again after importing. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and >> >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported >> >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. >> Statics >> >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent ways. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that >> were >> >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO >> via >> >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass >> includes >> >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), import >> >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker routines >> >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and >> >> >> > verification. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > g. Backend Driver: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a >> makefile >> >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel >> make. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to >> work, >> >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance >> and >> >> >> > usability. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of >> module-level >> >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all >> >> >> > function >> >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level >> >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be >> >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, >> >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. Import Tuning: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will >> >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different >> types >> >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in the >> >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional heavier-weight >> >> >> > IPA >> >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary >> and >> >> >> > callsite context. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are >> >> >> > unlikely >> >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 >> thin >> >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile data) >> >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. >> >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be >> suppressed. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the >> >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the >> mapping >> >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. >> Additional >> >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to >> >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build >> >> >> > cluster. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or >> >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation of >> >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. This >> can >> >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol >> table >> >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support >> for >> >> >> > incremental backend compiles. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >> >> >> > 408-460-2413 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >> 408-460-2413 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> -- >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150514/5483cdb1/attachment.html>
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:> I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make.Which part?> We have to > support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on > something that just binutils uses isn't particularly friendly here.I think you may have misunderstood His point was exactly that they want to be transparent to *all of* these tools. You are saying "we should be friendly to everyone". He is saying the same thing. We should be friendly to everyone. The friendly way to do this is to not require all of these tools build plugins to handle bitcode. Hence, elf-wrapped bitcode.> I also > can't imagine how it's necessary for any of the lto aspects as currently > written in the proposal. > > -eric > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil >> tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. >> 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is another >> reason. >> >> David >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they >>> > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just >>> > ELF. >>> > :) >>> >>> Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that >>> handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. >>> But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system >>> versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a >>> plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not >>> sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, >>> just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate >>> objects produced by ThinLTO. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Teresa >>> >>> > >>> > -eric >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li >>> >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg >>> >> > <alexr at leftfield.org> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this >>> >> >> requirement? >>> >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it >>> >> > clearer? >>> >> >>> >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular >>> >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. >>> >> >>> >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these >>> >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd >>> >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as >>> >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than >>> >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. >>> >> >>> >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. >>> >> >>> >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but >>> >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a >>> >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does >>> >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately >>> >> on an -flto link. >>> >> >>> >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the >>> >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. >>> >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not >>> >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r >>> >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO >>> >> until the full link step. >>> >> >>> >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Teresa >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > David >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Alex >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson >>> >> >> > <tejohnson at google.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, >>> >> >> > looking >>> >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. >>> >> >> > Thanks! >>> >> >> > Teresa >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. >>> >> >> > Background >>> >> >> > can >>> >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0) >>> >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and >>> >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes >>> >> >> > a >>> >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream >>> >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by >>> >> >> > default. >>> >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require >>> >> >> > frequent >>> >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that part >>> >> >> > we >>> >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed >>> >> >> > staged >>> >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > ThinLTO Overview >>> >> >> > =============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following >>> >> >> > is a >>> >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for >>> >> >> > improving >>> >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations >>> >> >> > across >>> >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to >>> >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two >>> >> >> > solutions >>> >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is >>> >> >> > currently >>> >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural >>> >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has >>> >> >> > limitations >>> >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new >>> >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal >>> >> >> > of >>> >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the >>> >> >> > same >>> >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of >>> >> >> > its >>> >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group decision >>> >> >> > is >>> >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at >>> >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale >>> >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be >>> >> >> > razor >>> >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal >>> >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed >>> >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, >>> >> >> > enabling >>> >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also >>> >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from >>> >> >> > early >>> >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with >>> >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much >>> >> >> > of >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to >>> >> >> > in >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > following implementation plan: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) >>> >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) >>> >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implementation Plan >>> >> >> > ===============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support >>> >> >> > that >>> >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be >>> >> >> > staged. >>> >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage >>> >> >> > contains a >>> >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. >>> >> >> > The >>> >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, >>> >> >> > which >>> >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes >>> >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the >>> >> >> > main >>> >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very >>> >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large >>> >> >> > apps to >>> >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast commits >>> >> >> > for >>> >> >> > these implementation stages. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation >>> >> >> > ------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when >>> >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC >>> >> >> > pass >>> >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for >>> >> >> > linking >>> >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. >>> >> >> > This >>> >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break that, >>> >> >> > we >>> >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, >>> >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, >>> >> >> > removing >>> >> >> > the circular dependence. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily >>> >> >> > interact >>> >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the >>> >> >> > phase-1 >>> >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a >>> >> >> > symbol >>> >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without >>> >> >> > requiring >>> >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across >>> >> >> > files >>> >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still >>> >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link >>> >> >> > step). >>> >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the >>> >> >> > following is a high-level overview. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode >>> >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist >>> >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I plan >>> >> >> > to >>> >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file >>> >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. >>> >> >> > Specifically, >>> >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). >>> >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under >>> >> >> > “-fthinlto >>> >> >> > -c” >>> >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, >>> >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates >>> >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, >>> >> >> > since >>> >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol >>> >> >> > table >>> >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent >>> >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc >>> >> >> > section >>> >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold >>> >> >> > and to >>> >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF >>> >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the >>> >> >> > ThinLTO >>> >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO >>> >> >> > functional >>> >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing >>> >> >> > binaries. It >>> >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g >>> >> >> > efficient >>> >> >> > with ThinLTO. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options >>> >> >> > to >>> >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the >>> >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. >>> >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) >>> >> >> > will >>> >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and >>> >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the >>> >> >> > appropriate >>> >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option >>> >> >> > will be >>> >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 >>> >> >> > thin >>> >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ >>> >> >> > tool >>> >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to >>> >> >> > perform >>> >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the >>> >> >> > normal >>> >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone >>> >> >> > llvm-lto >>> >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and >>> >> >> > plugin. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including >>> >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > new >>> >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a >>> >> >> > Linker >>> >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions >>> >> >> > into >>> >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and >>> >> >> > enable >>> >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function >>> >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a >>> >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc >>> >> >> > section >>> >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of >>> >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary >>> >> >> > sections >>> >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function >>> >> >> > lookup. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an >>> >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the >>> >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains >>> >> >> > that >>> >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently >>> >> >> > locate >>> >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains >>> >> >> > summary >>> >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing >>> >> >> > such as >>> >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to >>> >> >> > help >>> >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this >>> >> >> > section >>> >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be >>> >> >> > marked >>> >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version >>> >> >> > checking. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other >>> >> >> > modules, >>> >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be >>> >> >> > off by >>> >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to >>> >> >> > import/deserialize >>> >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing >>> >> >> > lazy >>> >> >> > streamer support). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific >>> >> >> > symbol >>> >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory >>> >> >> > initially, >>> >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming >>> >> >> > bitcode >>> >> >> > out and back in again after importing. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and >>> >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported >>> >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. >>> >> >> > Statics >>> >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent >>> >> >> > ways. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that >>> >> >> > were >>> >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO >>> >> >> > via >>> >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass >>> >> >> > includes >>> >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), >>> >> >> > import >>> >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker >>> >> >> > routines >>> >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and >>> >> >> > verification. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > g. Backend Driver: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a >>> >> >> > makefile >>> >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel >>> >> >> > make. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to >>> >> >> > work, >>> >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > usability. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of >>> >> >> > module-level >>> >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level >>> >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be >>> >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, >>> >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Import Tuning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will >>> >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different >>> >> >> > types >>> >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional >>> >> >> > heavier-weight >>> >> >> > IPA >>> >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary >>> >> >> > and >>> >> >> > callsite context. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are >>> >> >> > unlikely >>> >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 >>> >> >> > thin >>> >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile >>> >> >> > data) >>> >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. >>> >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be >>> >> >> > suppressed. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the >>> >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the >>> >> >> > mapping >>> >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. >>> >> >> > Additional >>> >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to >>> >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build >>> >> >> > cluster. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or >>> >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation >>> >> >> > of >>> >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. This >>> >> >> > can >>> >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol >>> >> >> > table >>> >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support >>> >> >> > for >>> >> >> > incremental backend compiles. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> >> >> > 408-460-2413 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> >> 408-460-2413 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
The end goal is the ability to turn on thin-lto as easy as turning optimizations like -O2 or -O3 -- we want friendliness, very much :) David On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:> I'm not sure this is a particularly great assumption to make. We have to > support a lot of different build systems and tools and concentrating on > something that just binutils uses isn't particularly friendly here. I also > can't imagine how it's necessary for any of the lto aspects as currently > written in the proposal. > > -eric > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil >> tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. >> 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is >> another reason. >> >> David >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they >>> > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not >>> just ELF. >>> > :) >>> >>> Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that >>> handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. >>> But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system >>> versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a >>> plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not >>> sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, >>> just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate >>> objects produced by ThinLTO. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Teresa >>> >>> > >>> > -eric >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li >>> >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg < >>> alexr at leftfield.org> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this >>> >> >> requirement? >>> >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it >>> clearer? >>> >> >>> >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular >>> >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. >>> >> >>> >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these >>> >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd >>> >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as >>> >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than >>> >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. >>> >> >>> >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. >>> >> >>> >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but >>> >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a >>> >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does >>> >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately >>> >> on an -flto link. >>> >> >>> >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the >>> >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. >>> >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not >>> >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r >>> >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO >>> >> until the full link step. >>> >> >>> >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Teresa >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > David >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Alex >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson < >>> tejohnson at google.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, >>> looking >>> >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. >>> >> >> > Thanks! >>> >> >> > Teresa >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. >>> Background >>> >> >> > can >>> >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0 >>> ) >>> >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and >>> >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes >>> a >>> >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream >>> >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by >>> default. >>> >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require >>> frequent >>> >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that >>> part we >>> >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed >>> >> >> > staged >>> >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > ThinLTO Overview >>> >> >> > =============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following >>> is a >>> >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for >>> improving >>> >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations >>> across >>> >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to >>> >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two >>> solutions >>> >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is >>> currently >>> >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural >>> >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has >>> limitations >>> >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new >>> >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal >>> of >>> >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the >>> same >>> >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of >>> its >>> >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group >>> decision is >>> >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at >>> >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale >>> >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be >>> razor >>> >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal >>> >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed >>> >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, >>> enabling >>> >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also >>> >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from >>> early >>> >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with >>> >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much >>> of >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to >>> in >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > following implementation plan: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) >>> >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) >>> >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implementation Plan >>> >> >> > ===============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support >>> that >>> >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be >>> staged. >>> >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage >>> contains a >>> >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. >>> The >>> >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, >>> which >>> >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes >>> >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the >>> >> >> > main >>> >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very >>> >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large >>> apps to >>> >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast >>> commits for >>> >> >> > these implementation stages. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation >>> >> >> > ------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when >>> >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC >>> >> >> > pass >>> >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for >>> linking >>> >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. >>> This >>> >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break >>> that, we >>> >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen >>> and >>> >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, >>> >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, >>> removing >>> >> >> > the circular dependence. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily >>> >> >> > interact >>> >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the >>> phase-1 >>> >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a >>> symbol >>> >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without >>> >> >> > requiring >>> >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across >>> files >>> >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still >>> >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link >>> step). >>> >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the >>> >> >> > following is a high-level overview. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode >>> >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist >>> >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I >>> plan to >>> >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file >>> >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. >>> >> >> > Specifically, >>> >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) >>> and >>> >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). >>> >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under >>> “-fthinlto >>> >> >> > -c” >>> >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, >>> >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates >>> >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, >>> since >>> >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol >>> >> >> > table >>> >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent >>> >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc >>> section >>> >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold >>> and to >>> >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF >>> >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the >>> ThinLTO >>> >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO >>> >> >> > functional >>> >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing >>> binaries. It >>> >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g >>> >> >> > efficient >>> >> >> > with ThinLTO. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options >>> to >>> >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the >>> >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. >>> >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) >>> will >>> >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and >>> >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the >>> appropriate >>> >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option >>> will be >>> >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 >>> thin >>> >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ >>> >> >> > tool >>> >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to >>> perform >>> >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the >>> normal >>> >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone >>> >> >> > llvm-lto >>> >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and >>> >> >> > plugin. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including >>> >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under >>> the >>> >> >> > new >>> >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a >>> Linker >>> >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions >>> into >>> >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and >>> enable >>> >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function >>> >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a >>> >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc >>> section >>> >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of >>> >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary >>> sections >>> >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function >>> lookup. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an >>> >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the >>> >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains >>> that >>> >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently >>> locate >>> >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains >>> >> >> > summary >>> >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing >>> such as >>> >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to >>> >> >> > help >>> >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this >>> section >>> >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be >>> >> >> > marked >>> >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version >>> checking. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other >>> modules, >>> >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be >>> off by >>> >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to >>> import/deserialize >>> >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing >>> lazy >>> >> >> > streamer support). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import >>> and >>> >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific >>> symbol >>> >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory >>> >> >> > initially, >>> >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming >>> bitcode >>> >> >> > out and back in again after importing. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and >>> >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported >>> >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. >>> Statics >>> >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent >>> ways. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that >>> were >>> >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO >>> via >>> >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass >>> includes >>> >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), >>> import >>> >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker >>> routines >>> >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and >>> >> >> > verification. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > g. Backend Driver: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a >>> makefile >>> >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel >>> make. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to >>> work, >>> >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance >>> and >>> >> >> > usability. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of >>> module-level >>> >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level >>> >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be >>> >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, >>> >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Import Tuning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will >>> >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different >>> types >>> >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in >>> the >>> >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional >>> heavier-weight >>> >> >> > IPA >>> >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary >>> and >>> >> >> > callsite context. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are >>> >> >> > unlikely >>> >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 >>> thin >>> >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile >>> data) >>> >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. >>> >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be >>> suppressed. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the >>> >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the >>> mapping >>> >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. >>> Additional >>> >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to >>> >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build >>> >> >> > cluster. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or >>> >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation >>> of >>> >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. >>> This can >>> >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol >>> table >>> >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support >>> for >>> >> >> > incremental backend compiles. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> >> >> > 408-460-2413 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> 408-460-2413 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >>> >> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150514/1393b781/attachment.html>
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote:> The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil > tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. > 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is > another reason. >What is your definition of "the wild" when it comes to build systems? It sounds like your current definition is "autotools/make builds on typical GNU/Linux distros". Merely having the linker do a "parallel make invocation" as your proposal state already presents a huge barrier to integration with almost any build system, far, far beyond any issues of wrapping bitcode. As your proposal admits, you are having to make this part custom for your own internal build system. The same is going to be true of every build system. If you are serious about "enable easy integration with any build system in the wild", I would recommend at the very least considering the use cases of a couple different common[1] -G settings of LLVM's own CMake build (-GNinja, -G'Visual Studio', -G'Xcode'). From my experience with "the wild" of build systems, I would suggest simply dropping any pretense of having this work with any build system with any degree of ease. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html - "common generators are" -- Sean Silva> > David > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they >> > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not just >> ELF. >> > :) >> >> Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that >> handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. >> But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system >> versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a >> plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not >> sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, >> just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate >> objects produced by ThinLTO. >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> > >> > -eric >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li >> >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg < >> alexr at leftfield.org> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. >> >> >> >> >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this >> >> >> requirement? >> >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it >> clearer? >> >> >> >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular >> >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. >> >> >> >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these >> >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd >> >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as >> >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than >> >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. >> >> >> >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When >> >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. >> >> >> >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but >> >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a >> >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does >> >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately >> >> on an -flto link. >> >> >> >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When >> >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the >> >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. >> >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not >> >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r >> >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO >> >> until the full link step. >> >> >> >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Teresa >> >> >> >> > >> >> > David >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com >> > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, >> looking >> >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. >> >> >> > Thanks! >> >> >> > Teresa >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. Background >> >> >> > can >> >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0) >> >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and >> >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes a >> >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream >> >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by >> default. >> >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require >> frequent >> >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that part >> we >> >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed >> >> >> > staged >> >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ThinLTO Overview >> >> >> > =============>> >> >> > >> >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following >> is a >> >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for >> improving >> >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations >> across >> >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to >> >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two >> solutions >> >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is >> currently >> >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural >> >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has >> limitations >> >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new >> >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal >> of >> >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the >> same >> >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of >> its >> >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group decision >> is >> >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at >> >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale >> >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be >> razor >> >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal >> >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed >> >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, >> enabling >> >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also >> >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from >> early >> >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with >> >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much of >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to in >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > following implementation plan: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) >> >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) >> >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Implementation Plan >> >> >> > ===============>> >> >> > >> >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support >> that >> >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be >> staged. >> >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage >> contains a >> >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. >> The >> >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, >> which >> >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes >> >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the >> >> >> > main >> >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very >> >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large >> apps to >> >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast commits >> for >> >> >> > these implementation stages. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation >> >> >> > ------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when >> >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC >> >> >> > pass >> >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for >> linking >> >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. This >> >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break that, >> we >> >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen >> and >> >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, >> >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, >> removing >> >> >> > the circular dependence. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily >> >> >> > interact >> >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the >> phase-1 >> >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a >> symbol >> >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without >> >> >> > requiring >> >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across files >> >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still >> >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link >> step). >> >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the >> >> >> > following is a high-level overview. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode >> >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist >> >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I plan >> to >> >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file >> >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. >> >> >> > Specifically, >> >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) >> and >> >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). >> >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under “-fthinlto >> >> >> > -c” >> >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, >> >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates >> >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, >> since >> >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol >> >> >> > table >> >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent >> >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc >> section >> >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold >> and to >> >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF >> >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the >> ThinLTO >> >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO >> >> >> > functional >> >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing >> binaries. It >> >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g >> >> >> > efficient >> >> >> > with ThinLTO. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options to >> >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the >> >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. >> >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) will >> >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and >> >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the appropriate >> >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option >> will be >> >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 >> thin >> >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ >> >> >> > tool >> >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to >> perform >> >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined >> >> >> > function >> >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the >> normal >> >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone >> >> >> > llvm-lto >> >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and >> >> >> > plugin. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including >> >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under the >> >> >> > new >> >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a >> Linker >> >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions >> into >> >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and >> enable >> >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function >> >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a >> >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc >> section >> >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of >> >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary sections >> >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function >> lookup. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an >> >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the >> >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains that >> >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently >> locate >> >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains >> >> >> > summary >> >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing >> such as >> >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to >> >> >> > help >> >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this section >> >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be >> >> >> > marked >> >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version checking. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other >> modules, >> >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be >> off by >> >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to >> import/deserialize >> >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing >> lazy >> >> >> > streamer support). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import >> and >> >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific >> symbol >> >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory >> >> >> > initially, >> >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming >> bitcode >> >> >> > out and back in again after importing. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and >> >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported >> >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. >> Statics >> >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent ways. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that >> were >> >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO >> via >> >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass >> includes >> >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), import >> >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker routines >> >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and >> >> >> > verification. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > g. Backend Driver: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a >> makefile >> >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel >> make. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to >> work, >> >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance >> and >> >> >> > usability. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of >> module-level >> >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all >> >> >> > function >> >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level >> >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be >> >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, >> >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > b. Import Tuning: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will >> >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different >> types >> >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in the >> >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional heavier-weight >> >> >> > IPA >> >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary >> and >> >> >> > callsite context. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are >> >> >> > unlikely >> >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 >> thin >> >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile data) >> >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. >> >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be >> suppressed. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the >> >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the >> mapping >> >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. >> Additional >> >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to >> >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build >> >> >> > cluster. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or >> >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation of >> >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. This >> can >> >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol >> table >> >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support >> for >> >> >> > incremental backend compiles. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >> >> >> > 408-460-2413 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >> 408-460-2413 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> -- >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150518/2fb056aa/attachment.html>
Sean, thanks for the good feedback. On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:> > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The design objective is to make thinLTO mostly transparent to binutil >> tools to enable easy integration with any build system in the wild. >> 'Pass-through' mode with 'ld -r' instead of the partial LTO mode is >> another reason. >> > > What is your definition of "the wild" when it comes to build systems? It > sounds like your current definition is "autotools/make builds on typical > GNU/Linux distros". >No, we certainly don't want to define build systems like that :)> > Merely having the linker do a "parallel make invocation" as your proposal > state already presents a huge barrier to integration with almost any build > system, >That (make based system) is just one common case we want to support first.> far, far beyond any issues of wrapping bitcode. >I think these (bitcode wrapper and build files) are two orthogonal issues to solve.> As your proposal admits, you are having to make this part custom for your > own internal build system. The same is going to be true of every build > system. >yes.> > If you are serious about "enable easy integration with any build system in > the wild", I would recommend at the very least considering the use cases of > a couple different common[1] -G settings of LLVM's own CMake build > (-GNinja, -G'Visual Studio', -G'Xcode'). From my experience with "the wild" > of build systems, >yes. We hope to support as many popular build systems as possible. Initially we will add support for make based and our internal large distributed systems. We will later add support for Ninja etc -- (e.g., so that we can turn on thinLTO for Clang self-build easily). Support for different parallel BE invocation build file generators are mostly incremental work which the community can help contribute.> I would suggest simply dropping any pretense of having this work with any > build system with any degree of ease. > >Sorry I give you the impression that build system integration is 'easy' -- it is not as you have commented. That is why we don't want to make it even harder by imposing more constraints on the underlying build tools. thanks, David> [1] http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html - "common generators are" > > -- Sean Silva > > >> >> David >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > So, what Alex is saying is that we have these tools as well and they >>> > understand bitcode just fine, as well as every object format - not >>> just ELF. >>> > :) >>> >>> Right, there are also LLVM specific versions (llvm-ar, llvm-nm) that >>> handle bitcode similarly to the way the standard tool + plugin does. >>> But the goal we are trying to achieve is to allow the standard system >>> versions of the tools to handle these files without requiring a >>> plugin. I know the LLVM tool handles other object formats, but I'm not >>> sure how that helps here? We're not planning to replace those tools, >>> just allow the standard system versions to handle the intermediate >>> objects produced by ThinLTO. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Teresa >>> >>> > >>> > -eric >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 14, 2015, 6:55 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Xinliang David Li >>> >> <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Rosenberg < >>> alexr at leftfield.org> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "ELF-wrapped bitcode" seems potentially controversial to me. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What about ar, nm, and various ld implementations adds this >>> >> >> requirement? >>> >> >> What about the LLVM implementations of these tools is lacking? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Sorry I can not parse your questions properly. Can you make it >>> clearer? >>> >> >>> >> Alex is asking what the issue is with ar, nm, ld -r and regular >>> >> bitcode that makes using elf-wrapped bitcode easier. >>> >> >>> >> The issue is that generally you need to provide a plugin to these >>> >> tools in order for them to understand and handle bitcode files. We'd >>> >> like standard tools to work without requiring a plugin as much as >>> >> possible. And in some cases we want them to be handled different than >>> >> the way bitcode files are handled with the plugin. >>> >> >>> >> nm: Without a plugin, normal bitcode files are inscrutable. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin it can emit the symbols. >>> >> >>> >> ar: Without a plugin, it will create an archive of bitcode files, but >>> >> without an index, so it can't be handled by the linker even with a >>> >> plugin on an -flto link. When ar is provided the gold plugin it does >>> >> create an index, so the linker + gold plugin handle it appropriately >>> >> on an -flto link. >>> >> >>> >> ld -r: Without a plugin, fails when provided bitcode inputs. When >>> >> provided the gold plugin, it handles them but compiles them all the >>> >> way through to ELF executable instructions via a partial LTO link. >>> >> This is where we would like to differ in behavior (while also not >>> >> requiring a plugin) with ELF-wrapped bitcode: we would like the ld -r >>> >> output file to still contain ELF-wrapped bitcode, delaying the LTO >>> >> until the full link step. >>> >> >>> >> Let me know if that helps address your concerns. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> Teresa >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > David >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Alex >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > On May 13, 2015, at 7:44 PM, Teresa Johnson < >>> tejohnson at google.com> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I've included below an RFC for implementing ThinLTO in LLVM, >>> looking >>> >> >> > forward to feedback and questions. >>> >> >> > Thanks! >>> >> >> > Teresa >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > RFC to discuss plans for implementing ThinLTO upstream. >>> Background >>> >> >> > can >>> >> >> > be found in slides from EuroLLVM 2015: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B036uwnWM6RWWER1ZEl5SUNENjQ&authuser=0 >>> ) >>> >> >> > As described in the talk, we have a prototype implementation, and >>> >> >> > would like to start staging patches upstream. This RFC describes >>> a >>> >> >> > breakdown of the major pieces. We would like to commit upstream >>> >> >> > gradually in several stages, with all functionality off by >>> default. >>> >> >> > The core ThinLTO importing support and tuning will require >>> frequent >>> >> >> > change and iteration during testing and tuning, and for that >>> part we >>> >> >> > would like to commit rapidly (off by default). See the proposed >>> >> >> > staged >>> >> >> > implementation described in the Implementation Plan section. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > ThinLTO Overview >>> >> >> > =============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > See the talk slides linked above for more details. The following >>> is a >>> >> >> > high-level overview of the motivation. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Cross Module Optimization (CMO) is an effective means for >>> improving >>> >> >> > runtime performance, by extending the scope of optimizations >>> across >>> >> >> > source module boundaries. Without CMO, the compiler is limited to >>> >> >> > optimizing within the scope of single source modules. Two >>> solutions >>> >> >> > for enabling CMO are Link-Time Optimization (LTO), which is >>> currently >>> >> >> > supported in LLVM and GCC, and Lightweight-Interprocedural >>> >> >> > Optimization (LIPO). However, each of these solutions has >>> limitations >>> >> >> > that prevent it from being enabled by default. ThinLTO is a new >>> >> >> > approach that attempts to address these limitations, with a goal >>> of >>> >> >> > being enabled more broadly. ThinLTO is designed with many of the >>> same >>> >> >> > principals as LIPO, and therefore its advantages, without any of >>> its >>> >> >> > inherent weakness. Unlike in LIPO where the module group >>> decision is >>> >> >> > made at profile training runtime, ThinLTO makes the decision at >>> >> >> > compile time, but in a lazy mode that facilitates large scale >>> >> >> > parallelism. The serial linker plugin phase is designed to be >>> razor >>> >> >> > thin and blazingly fast. By default this step only does minimal >>> >> >> > preparation work to enable the parallel lazy importing performed >>> >> >> > later. ThinLTO aims to be scalable like a regular O2 build, >>> enabling >>> >> >> > CMO on machines without large memory configurations, while also >>> >> >> > integrating well with distributed build systems. Results from >>> early >>> >> >> > prototyping on SPEC cpu2006 C++ benchmarks are in line with >>> >> >> > expectations that ThinLTO can scale like O2 while enabling much >>> of >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > CMO performed during a full LTO build. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > A ThinLTO build is divided into 3 phases, which are referred to >>> in >>> >> >> > the >>> >> >> > following implementation plan: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > phase-1: IR and Function Summary Generation (-c compile) >>> >> >> > phase-2: Thin Linker Plugin Layer (thin archive linker step) >>> >> >> > phase-3: Parallel Backend with Demand-Driven Importing >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implementation Plan >>> >> >> > ===============>>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This section gives a high-level breakdown of the ThinLTO support >>> that >>> >> >> > will be added, in roughly the order that the patches would be >>> staged. >>> >> >> > The patches are divided into three stages. The first stage >>> contains a >>> >> >> > minimal amount of preparation work that is not ThinLTO-specific. >>> The >>> >> >> > second stage contains most of the infrastructure for ThinLTO, >>> which >>> >> >> > will be off by default. The third stage includes >>> >> >> > enhancements/improvements/tunings that can be performed after the >>> >> >> > main >>> >> >> > ThinLTO infrastructure is in. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The second and third implementation stages will initially be very >>> >> >> > volatile, requiring a lot of iterations and tuning with large >>> apps to >>> >> >> > get stabilized. Therefore it will be important to do fast >>> commits for >>> >> >> > these implementation stages. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 1. Stage 1: Preparation >>> >> >> > ------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The first planned sets of patches are enablers for ThinLTO work: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. LTO directory structure: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Restructure the LTO directory to remove circular dependence when >>> >> >> > ThinLTO pass added. Because ThinLTO is being implemented as a SCC >>> >> >> > pass >>> >> >> > within Transforms/IPO, and leverages the LTOModule class for >>> linking >>> >> >> > in functions from modules, IPO then requires the LTO library. >>> This >>> >> >> > creates a circular dependence between LTO and IPO. To break >>> that, we >>> >> >> > need to split the lib/LTO directory/library into lib/LTO/CodeGen >>> and >>> >> >> > lib/LTO/Module, containing LTOCodeGenerator and LTOModule, >>> >> >> > respectively. Only LTOCodeGenerator has a dependence on IPO, >>> removing >>> >> >> > the circular dependence. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. ELF wrapper generation support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Implement ELF wrapped bitcode writer. In order to more easily >>> >> >> > interact >>> >> >> > with tools such as $AR, $NM, and “$LD -r” we plan to emit the >>> phase-1 >>> >> >> > bitcode wrapped in ELF via the .llvmbc section, along with a >>> symbol >>> >> >> > table. The goal is both to interact with these tools without >>> >> >> > requiring >>> >> >> > a plugin, and also to avoid doing partial LTO/ThinLTO across >>> files >>> >> >> > linked with “$LD -r” (i.e. the resulting object file should still >>> >> >> > contain ELF-wrapped bitcode to enable ThinLTO at the full link >>> step). >>> >> >> > I will send a separate design document for these changes, but the >>> >> >> > following is a high-level overview. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support was added to LLVM for reading ELF-wrapped bitcode >>> >> >> > (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL218078), but there does not yet exist >>> >> >> > support in LLVM/Clang for emitting bitcode wrapped in ELF. I >>> plan to >>> >> >> > add support for optionally generating bitcode in an ELF file >>> >> >> > containing a single .llvmbc section holding the bitcode. >>> >> >> > Specifically, >>> >> >> > the patch would add new options “emit-llvm-bc-elf” (object file) >>> and >>> >> >> > corresponding “emit-llvm-elf” (textual assembly code equivalent). >>> >> >> > Eventually these would be automatically triggered under >>> “-fthinlto >>> >> >> > -c” >>> >> >> > and “-fthinlto -S”, respectively. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Additionally, a symbol table will be generated in the ELF file, >>> >> >> > holding the function symbols within the bitcode. This facilitates >>> >> >> > handling archives of the ELF-wrapped bitcode created with $AR, >>> since >>> >> >> > the archive will have a symbol table as well. The archive symbol >>> >> >> > table >>> >> >> > enables gold to extract and pass to the plugin the constituent >>> >> >> > ELF-wrapped bitcode files. To support the concatenated llvmbc >>> section >>> >> >> > generated by “$LD -r”, some handling needs to be added to gold >>> and to >>> >> >> > the backend driver to process each original module’s bitcode. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The function index/summary will later be added as a special ELF >>> >> >> > section alongside the .llvmbc sections. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 2. Stage 2: ThinLTO Infrastructure >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The next set of patches adds the base implementation of the >>> ThinLTO >>> >> >> > infrastructure, specifically those required to make ThinLTO >>> >> >> > functional >>> >> >> > and generate correct but not necessarily high-performing >>> binaries. It >>> >> >> > also does not include support to make debug support under -g >>> >> >> > efficient >>> >> >> > with ThinLTO. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Clang/LLVM/gold linker options: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > An early set of clang/llvm patches is needed to provide options >>> to >>> >> >> > enable ThinLTO (off by default), so that the rest of the >>> >> >> > implementation can be disabled by default as it is added. >>> >> >> > Specifically, clang options -fthinlto (used instead of -flto) >>> will >>> >> >> > cause clang to invoke the phase-1 emission of LLVM bitcode and >>> >> >> > function summary/index on a compile step, and pass the >>> appropriate >>> >> >> > option to the gold plugin on a link step. The -thinlto option >>> will be >>> >> >> > added to the gold plugin and llvm-lto tool to launch the phase-2 >>> thin >>> >> >> > archive step. The -thinlto option will also be added to the ‘opt’ >>> >> >> > tool >>> >> >> > to invoke it as a phase-3 parallel backend instance. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Thin-archive linking support in Gold plugin and llvm-lto: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Under the new plugin option (see above), the plugin needs to >>> perform >>> >> >> > the phase-2 (thin archive) link which simply emits a combined >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > map from the linked modules, without actually performing the >>> normal >>> >> >> > link. Corresponding support should be added to the standalone >>> >> >> > llvm-lto >>> >> >> > tool to enable testing/debugging without involving the linker and >>> >> >> > plugin. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. ThinLTO backend support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for invoking a phase-3 backend invocation (including >>> >> >> > importing) on a module should be added to the ‘opt’ tool under >>> the >>> >> >> > new >>> >> >> > option. The main change under the option is to instantiate a >>> Linker >>> >> >> > object used to manage the process of linking imported functions >>> into >>> >> >> > the module, efficient read of the combined function map, and >>> enable >>> >> >> > the ThinLTO import pass. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Function index/summary support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This includes infrastructure for writing and reading the function >>> >> >> > index/summary section. As noted earlier this will be encoded in a >>> >> >> > special ELF section within the module, alongside the .llvmbc >>> section >>> >> >> > containing the bitcode. The thin archive generated by phase-2 of >>> >> >> > ThinLTO simply contains all of the function index/summary >>> sections >>> >> >> > across the linked modules, organized for efficient function >>> lookup. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Each function available for importing from the module contains an >>> >> >> > entry in the module’s function index/summary section and in the >>> >> >> > resulting combined function map. Each function entry contains >>> that >>> >> >> > function’s offset within the bitcode file, used to efficiently >>> locate >>> >> >> > and quickly import just that function. The entry also contains >>> >> >> > summary >>> >> >> > information (e.g. basic information determined during parsing >>> such as >>> >> >> > the number of instructions in the function), that will be used to >>> >> >> > help >>> >> >> > guide later import decisions. Because the contents of this >>> section >>> >> >> > will change frequently during ThinLTO tuning, it should also be >>> >> >> > marked >>> >> >> > with a version id for backwards compatibility or version >>> checking. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. ThinLTO importing support: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Support for the mechanics of importing functions from other >>> modules, >>> >> >> > which can go in gradually as a set of patches since it will be >>> off by >>> >> >> > default. Separate patches can include: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - BitcodeReader changes to use function index to >>> import/deserialize >>> >> >> > single function of interest (small changes, leverages existing >>> lazy >>> >> >> > streamer support). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Minor LTOModule changes to pass the ThinLTO function to import >>> and >>> >> >> > its index into bitcode reader. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - Marking of imported functions (for use in ThinLTO-specific >>> symbol >>> >> >> > linking and global DCE, for example). This can be in-memory >>> >> >> > initially, >>> >> >> > but IR support may be required in order to support streaming >>> bitcode >>> >> >> > out and back in again after importing. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - ModuleLinker changes to do ThinLTO-specific symbol linking and >>> >> >> > static promotion when necessary. The linkage type of imported >>> >> >> > functions changes to AvailableExternallyLinkage, for example. >>> Statics >>> >> >> > must be promoted in certain cases, and renamed in consistent >>> ways. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > - GlobalDCE changes to support removing imported functions that >>> were >>> >> >> > not inlined (very small changes to existing pass logic). >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > f. ThinLTO Import Driver SCC pass: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Adds Transforms/IPO/ThinLTO.cpp with framework for doing ThinLTO >>> via >>> >> >> > an SCC pass, enabled only under -fthinlto options. The pass >>> includes >>> >> >> > utilizing the thin archive (global function index/summary), >>> import >>> >> >> > decision heuristics, invocation of LTOModule/ModuleLinker >>> routines >>> >> >> > that perform the import, and any necessary callgraph updates and >>> >> >> > verification. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > g. Backend Driver: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a single node build, the gold plugin can simply write a >>> makefile >>> >> >> > and fork the parallel backend instances directly via parallel >>> make. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > 3. Stage 3: ThinLTO Tuning and Enhancements >>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > This refers to the patches that are not required for ThinLTO to >>> work, >>> >> >> > but rather to improve compile time, memory, run-time performance >>> and >>> >> >> > usability. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > a. Lazy Debug Metadata Linking: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The prototype implementation included lazy importing of >>> module-level >>> >> >> > metadata during the ThinLTO pass finalization (i.e. after all >>> >> >> > function >>> >> >> > importing is complete). This actually applies to all module-level >>> >> >> > metadata, not just debug, although it is the largest. This can be >>> >> >> > added as a separate set of patches. Changes to BitcodeReader, >>> >> >> > ValueMapper, ModuleLinker >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > b. Import Tuning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Tuning the import strategy will be an iterative process that will >>> >> >> > continue to be refined over time. It involves several different >>> types >>> >> >> > of changes: adding support for recording additional metrics in >>> the >>> >> >> > function summary, such as profile data and optional >>> heavier-weight >>> >> >> > IPA >>> >> >> > analyses, and tuning the import heuristics based on the summary >>> and >>> >> >> > callsite context. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > c. Combined Function Map Pruning: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The combined function map can be pruned of functions that are >>> >> >> > unlikely >>> >> >> > to benefit from being imported. For example, during the phase-2 >>> thin >>> >> >> > archive plug step we can safely omit large and (with profile >>> data) >>> >> >> > cold functions, which are unlikely to benefit from being inlined. >>> >> >> > Additionally, all but one copy of comdat functions can be >>> suppressed. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > d. Distributed Build System Integration: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > For a distributed build system, the gold plugin should write the >>> >> >> > parallel backend invocations into a makefile, including the >>> mapping >>> >> >> > from the IR file to the real object file path, and exit. >>> Additional >>> >> >> > work needs to be done in the distributed build system itself to >>> >> >> > distribute and dispatch the parallel backend jobs to the build >>> >> >> > cluster. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > e. Dependence Tracking and Incremental Compiles: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > In order to support build systems that stage from local disks or >>> >> >> > network storage, the plugin will optionally support computation >>> of >>> >> >> > dependent sets of IR files that each module may import from. >>> This can >>> >> >> > be computed from profile data, if it exists, or from the symbol >>> table >>> >> >> > and heuristics if not. These dependence sets also enable support >>> for >>> >> >> > incremental backend compiles. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> >> >> > 408-460-2413 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | >>> 408-460-2413 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150518/43270603/attachment.html>