Dehao Chen via llvm-dev
2017-Feb-07 22:26 UTC
[llvm-dev] (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
Ping... with the updated code size impact data, any more comments? Any more data that would be interesting to collect? Thanks, Dehao On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote:> Here is the code size impact for clang, chrome and 24 google internal > benchmarks (name omited, 14 15 16 are encoding/decoding benchmarks similar > as h264). There are 2 columns, for threshold 300 and 450 respectively. > > I also tested the llvm test suite. Changing the threshold to 300/450 does > not affect code gen for any binary in the test suite. > > > > 300 450 > clang 0.30% 0.63% > chrome 0.00% 0.00% > 1 0.27% 0.67% > 2 0.44% 0.93% > 3 0.44% 0.93% > 4 0.26% 0.53% > 5 0.74% 2.21% > 6 0.74% 2.21% > 7 0.74% 2.21% > 8 0.46% 1.05% > 9 0.35% 0.86% > 10 0.35% 0.86% > 11 0.40% 0.83% > 12 0.32% 0.65% > 13 0.31% 0.64% > 14 4.52% 8.23% > 15 9.90% 19.38% > 16 9.90% 19.38% > 17 0.68% 1.97% > 18 0.21% 0.48% > 19 0.99% 3.44% > 20 0.19% 0.46% > 21 0.57% 1.62% > 22 0.37% 1.05% > 23 0.78% 1.30% > 24 0.51% 1.54% > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> clang, chrome, and some internal large apps are good candidates for size >> metrics. >> >> I'd also add the standard LLVM testsuite just because it's the suite >> everyone in the community can use. >> >> Michael >> >> >> David >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> I had suggested having size metrics from somewhat larger applications >>> such as Chrome, Webkit, or Firefox; clang itself; and maybe some of our >>> internal binaries with rough size brackets? >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> With the new data points, any comments on whether this can justify >>>> setting fully inline threshold to 300 (or any other number) in O2? I can >>>> collect more data points if it's helpful. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dehao >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Recollected the data from trunk head with stddev data and more >>>> threshold data points attached: >>>> >>>> Performance: >>>> >>>> stddev/mean 300 450 600 750 >>>> 403 0.37% 0.11% 0.11% 0.09% 0.79% >>>> 433 0.14% 0.51% 0.25% -0.63% -0.29% >>>> 445 0.08% 0.48% 0.89% 0.12% 0.83% >>>> 447 0.16% 3.50% 2.69% 3.66% 3.59% >>>> 453 0.11% 1.49% 0.45% -0.07% 0.78% >>>> 464 0.17% 0.75% 1.80% 1.86% 1.54% >>>> Code size: >>>> >>>> 300 450 600 750 >>>> 403 0.56% 2.41% 2.74% 3.75% >>>> 433 0.96% 2.84% 4.19% 4.87% >>>> 445 2.16% 3.62% 4.48% 5.88% >>>> 447 2.96% 5.09% 6.74% 8.89% >>>> 453 0.94% 1.67% 2.73% 2.96% >>>> 464 8.02% 13.50% 20.51% 26.59% >>>> Compile time is proportional in the experiments and more noisy, so I >>>> did not include it. >>>> >>>> We have >2% speedup on some google internal benchmarks when switching >>>> the threshold from 150 to 300. >>>> >>>> Dehao >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Another question is about PGO integration: is it already hooked there? >>>> Should we have a more aggressive threshold in a hot function? (Assuming >>>> we’re willing to spend some binary size there but not on the cold path). >>>> >>>> >>>> I would even wire the *unrolling* the other way: just suppress >>>> unrolling in cold paths to save binary size. rolled loops seem like a >>>> generally good thing in cold code unless they are having some larger impact >>>> (IE, the loop itself is more expensive than the unrolled form). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Agree that we could suppress unrolling in cold path to save code size. >>>> But that's orthogonal with the propose here. This proposal focuses on O2 >>>> performance: shall we have different (higher) fully unroll threshold than >>>> dynamic/partial unroll. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree that this is (to some extent) orthogonal, and it makes sense to >>>> me to differentiate the threshold for full unroll and the dynamic/partial >>>> case. >>>> >>>> >>>> There is one issue that makes these not orthogonal. >>>> >>>> If even *static* profile hints will reduce some of the code size >>>> increase caused by higher unrolling thresholds for non-cold code, we should >>>> factor that into the tradeoff in picking where the threshold goes. >>>> >>>> However, getting PGO into the full unroller is currently challenging >>>> outside of the new pass manager. We already have some unfortunate hacks >>>> around this in LoopUnswitch that are making the port of it to the new PM >>>> more annoying. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170207/2b02f874/attachment-0001.html>
Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev
2017-Feb-07 23:29 UTC
[llvm-dev] (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
Sorry if I missed it, but what machine/CPU are you using to collect the perf numbers? I am concerned that what may be a win on a CPU that keeps a couple of hundred instructions in-flight and has many MB of caches will not hold for a small core. Is the proposed change universal? Is there a way to undo it? On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Dehao Chen via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Ping... with the updated code size impact data, any more comments? Any > more data that would be interesting to collect? > > Thanks, > Dehao > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: > >> Here is the code size impact for clang, chrome and 24 google internal >> benchmarks (name omited, 14 15 16 are encoding/decoding benchmarks similar >> as h264). There are 2 columns, for threshold 300 and 450 respectively. >> >> I also tested the llvm test suite. Changing the threshold to 300/450 does >> not affect code gen for any binary in the test suite. >> >> >> >> 300 450 >> clang 0.30% 0.63% >> chrome 0.00% 0.00% >> 1 0.27% 0.67% >> 2 0.44% 0.93% >> 3 0.44% 0.93% >> 4 0.26% 0.53% >> 5 0.74% 2.21% >> 6 0.74% 2.21% >> 7 0.74% 2.21% >> 8 0.46% 1.05% >> 9 0.35% 0.86% >> 10 0.35% 0.86% >> 11 0.40% 0.83% >> 12 0.32% 0.65% >> 13 0.31% 0.64% >> 14 4.52% 8.23% >> 15 9.90% 19.38% >> 16 9.90% 19.38% >> 17 0.68% 1.97% >> 18 0.21% 0.48% >> 19 0.99% 3.44% >> 20 0.19% 0.46% >> 21 0.57% 1.62% >> 22 0.37% 1.05% >> 23 0.78% 1.30% >> 24 0.51% 1.54% >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> clang, chrome, and some internal large apps are good candidates for size >>> metrics. >>> >>> I'd also add the standard LLVM testsuite just because it's the suite >>> everyone in the community can use. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I had suggested having size metrics from somewhat larger applications >>>> such as Chrome, Webkit, or Firefox; clang itself; and maybe some of our >>>> internal binaries with rough size brackets? >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> With the new data points, any comments on whether this can justify >>>>> setting fully inline threshold to 300 (or any other number) in O2? I can >>>>> collect more data points if it's helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Dehao >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Recollected the data from trunk head with stddev data and more >>>>> threshold data points attached: >>>>> >>>>> Performance: >>>>> >>>>> stddev/mean 300 450 600 750 >>>>> 403 0.37% 0.11% 0.11% 0.09% 0.79% >>>>> 433 0.14% 0.51% 0.25% -0.63% -0.29% >>>>> 445 0.08% 0.48% 0.89% 0.12% 0.83% >>>>> 447 0.16% 3.50% 2.69% 3.66% 3.59% >>>>> 453 0.11% 1.49% 0.45% -0.07% 0.78% >>>>> 464 0.17% 0.75% 1.80% 1.86% 1.54% >>>>> Code size: >>>>> >>>>> 300 450 600 750 >>>>> 403 0.56% 2.41% 2.74% 3.75% >>>>> 433 0.96% 2.84% 4.19% 4.87% >>>>> 445 2.16% 3.62% 4.48% 5.88% >>>>> 447 2.96% 5.09% 6.74% 8.89% >>>>> 453 0.94% 1.67% 2.73% 2.96% >>>>> 464 8.02% 13.50% 20.51% 26.59% >>>>> Compile time is proportional in the experiments and more noisy, so I >>>>> did not include it. >>>>> >>>>> We have >2% speedup on some google internal benchmarks when switching >>>>> the threshold from 150 to 300. >>>>> >>>>> Dehao >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Chandler Carruth < >>>>> chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another question is about PGO integration: is it already hooked there? >>>>> Should we have a more aggressive threshold in a hot function? (Assuming >>>>> we’re willing to spend some binary size there but not on the cold path). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would even wire the *unrolling* the other way: just suppress >>>>> unrolling in cold paths to save binary size. rolled loops seem like a >>>>> generally good thing in cold code unless they are having some larger impact >>>>> (IE, the loop itself is more expensive than the unrolled form). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agree that we could suppress unrolling in cold path to save code size. >>>>> But that's orthogonal with the propose here. This proposal focuses on O2 >>>>> performance: shall we have different (higher) fully unroll threshold than >>>>> dynamic/partial unroll. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree that this is (to some extent) orthogonal, and it makes sense >>>>> to me to differentiate the threshold for full unroll and the >>>>> dynamic/partial case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is one issue that makes these not orthogonal. >>>>> >>>>> If even *static* profile hints will reduce some of the code size >>>>> increase caused by higher unrolling thresholds for non-cold code, we should >>>>> factor that into the tradeoff in picking where the threshold goes. >>>>> >>>>> However, getting PGO into the full unroller is currently challenging >>>>> outside of the new pass manager. We already have some unfortunate hacks >>>>> around this in LoopUnswitch that are making the port of it to the new PM >>>>> more annoying. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170207/b38f3070/attachment.html>
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
2017-Feb-08 06:24 UTC
[llvm-dev] (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
On 02/07/2017 05:29 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev wrote:> Sorry if I missed it, but what machine/CPU are you using to collect > the perf numbers? > > I am concerned that what may be a win on a CPU that keeps a couple of > hundred instructions in-flight and has many MB of caches will not hold > for a small core.In my experience, unrolling tends to help weaker cores even more than stronger ones because it allows the instruction scheduler more opportunities to hide latency. Obviously, instruction-cache pressure is an important consideration, but the code size changes here seems small.> > Is the proposed change universal? Is there a way to undo it?All of the unrolling thresholds should be target-adjustable using the TTI::getUnrollingPreferences hook. -Hal> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Dehao Chen via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Ping... with the updated code size impact data, any more comments? > Any more data that would be interesting to collect? > > Thanks, > Dehao > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Dehao Chen <dehao at google.com > <mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote: > > Here is the code size impact for clang, chrome and 24 google > internal benchmarks (name omited, 14 15 16 are > encoding/decoding benchmarks similar as h264). There are 2 > columns, for threshold 300 and 450 respectively. > > I also tested the llvm test suite. Changing the threshold to > 300/450 does not affect code gen for any binary in the test suite. > > > > 300 450 > clang 0.30% 0.63% > chrome 0.00% 0.00% > 1 0.27% 0.67% > 2 0.44% 0.93% > 3 0.44% 0.93% > 4 0.26% 0.53% > 5 0.74% 2.21% > 6 0.74% 2.21% > 7 0.74% 2.21% > 8 0.46% 1.05% > 9 0.35% 0.86% > 10 0.35% 0.86% > 11 0.40% 0.83% > 12 0.32% 0.65% > 13 0.31% 0.64% > 14 4.52% 8.23% > 15 9.90% 19.38% > 16 9.90% 19.38% > 17 0.68% 1.97% > 18 0.21% 0.48% > 19 0.99% 3.44% > 20 0.19% 0.46% > 21 0.57% 1.62% > 22 0.37% 1.05% > 23 0.78% 1.30% > 24 0.51% 1.54% > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via > llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Xinliang David Li via >> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> clang, chrome, and some internal large apps are good >> candidates for size metrics. > I'd also add the standard LLVM testsuite just because it's > the suite everyone in the community can use. > > Michael >> >> David >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Chandler Carruth via >> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> I had suggested having size metrics from somewhat >> larger applications such as Chrome, Webkit, or >> Firefox; clang itself; and maybe some of our internal >> binaries with rough size brackets? >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM Dehao Chen >> <dehao at google.com <mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote: >> >> With the new data points, any comments on whether >> this can justify setting fully inline threshold >> to 300 (or any other number) in O2? I can collect >> more data points if it's helpful. >> >> Thanks, >> Dehao >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Dehao Chen >> <dehao at google.com <mailto:dehao at google.com>> wrote: >> >> Recollected the data from trunk head with >> stddev data and more threshold data points >> attached: >> >> Performance: >> >> stddev/mean 300 450 600 750 >> 403 0.37% 0.11% 0.11% 0.09% 0.79% >> 433 0.14% 0.51% 0.25% -0.63% -0.29% >> 445 0.08% 0.48% 0.89% 0.12% 0.83% >> 447 0.16% 3.50% 2.69% 3.66% 3.59% >> 453 0.11% 1.49% 0.45% -0.07% 0.78% >> 464 0.17% 0.75% 1.80% 1.86% 1.54% >> >> >> Code size: >> >> 300 450 600 750 >> 403 0.56% 2.41% 2.74% 3.75% >> 433 0.96% 2.84% 4.19% 4.87% >> 445 2.16% 3.62% 4.48% 5.88% >> 447 2.96% 5.09% 6.74% 8.89% >> 453 0.94% 1.67% 2.73% 2.96% >> 464 8.02% 13.50% 20.51% 26.59% >> >> >> Compile time is proportional in the >> experiments and more noisy, so I did not >> include it. >> >> We have >2% speedup on some google internal >> benchmarks when switching the threshold from >> 150 to 300. >> >> Dehao >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Chandler >> Carruth <chandlerc at google.com >> <mailto:chandlerc at google.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:59 PM Mehdi >> Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com >> <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Another question is about >>> PGO integration: is it >>> already hooked there? Should >>> we have a more aggressive >>> threshold in a hot function? >>> (Assuming we’re willing to >>> spend some binary size there >>> but not on the cold path). >>> >>> >>> I would even wire the >>> *unrolling* the other way: just >>> suppress unrolling in cold paths >>> to save binary size. rolled >>> loops seem like a generally good >>> thing in cold code unless they >>> are having some larger impact >>> (IE, the loop itself is more >>> expensive than the unrolled form). >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree that we could suppress >>> unrolling in cold path to save code >>> size. But that's orthogonal with the >>> propose here. This proposal focuses >>> on O2 performance: shall we have >>> different (higher) fully unroll >>> threshold than dynamic/partial unroll. >> >> I agree that this is (to some extent) >> orthogonal, and it makes sense to me >> to differentiate the threshold for >> full unroll and the dynamic/partial case. >> >> >> There is one issue that makes these not >> orthogonal. >> >> If even *static* profile hints will >> reduce some of the code size increase >> caused by higher unrolling thresholds for >> non-cold code, we should factor that into >> the tradeoff in picking where the >> threshold goes. >> >> However, getting PGO into the full >> unroller is currently challenging outside >> of the new pass manager. We already have >> some unfortunate hacks around this in >> LoopUnswitch that are making the port of >> it to the new PM more annoying. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-- Hal Finkel Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170208/0f7dd34d/attachment-0001.html>
Maybe Matching Threads
- (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
- (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
- (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
- (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold
- (RFC) Adjusting default loop fully unroll threshold