thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca. [Nov 2018]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Matt Davis via llvm-dev

2018-Nov-21 16:46 UTC

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

Hi Andrea, 

Thanks for your input. 

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote:
[... snip ...]> About the suggested design:
> I like the idea of being able to identify code regions using a numeric
> identifier.
> However, what happens if a code region spans through multiple basic blocks?
The current patch does not take into consideration cases where the
region start and end intrinsics are placed in different basic blocks.
Such would be the case if a region is defined to span multiple blocks.
This would be similar to the current case where a user places a
#LLVM-MCA-BEGIN assembly comment in one block and an #LLVM-MCA-END in
another.  However, as you point out below, if the user does this in the
source code via intrinsics (just what this patch is proposing), then
there is a chance that optimizations might change the layout of the
instructions and confuse the ordering of the MCA intrinsics.

Since MCA does not follow branches (MCA just treats a branch as it would
a non-branching instruction), it seems that a user should be aware that
defining MCA code regions that span multiple blocks might result in an
unexpected analysis.  While we do not discourage this, it seems like
such a case will probably not produce an expected result for the user.
We could introduce a warning, or automatically divide the regions so
that a single region can only contain a single block.
> My understanding is that code regions are not allowed to overlap. So, it
> makes sense if ` __mca_code_region_end()` doesn't take an ID as input.
> However, what if ` __mca_code_region_end()` ends in a different basic
block?
> 
> `__mca_code_region_start()` has to always dominate `
> __mca_code_region_end()`. This is trivial to verify when both calls are in
> a same basic block; however, we need to make sure that the relationship is
> still the same when the `end()` call is in a different basic block.
> That would not be enough. I think we should also verify  that `
> __mca_code_region_end()` always post-dominates the call to
> `__mca_code_region_start()`.
In any case this patch should probably check dominance of the
intrinsics, even though MCA does not follow branches and MCA does not
not explicitly forbid a region from containing multiple blocks.
> 
> My question is: what happens with basic block reordering? We don't know
the
> layout of basic blocks until we reach code emission. How does it work for
> regions that span through multiple basic blocks?. I think your RFC should
> clarify this aspect.
> 
> As a side note: at the moment, llvm-mca doesn't know how to deal with
> branches. So, for simplicity we could force code regions to only contain
> instructions from a single basic block.
> 
> However, In future we may want to teach llvm-mca how to analyze branchy
> code too. For example, we could introduce a simple control-flow analysis in
> llvm-mca, and use an external "branch trace" information (for
example, a
> perf trace generated by an external tool) to decorate branches with with
> branch probabilities (similarly to what we currently do in LLVM with PGO).
> We could then use that knowledge to model branch prediction and simulate
> what happens in the presence of multiple branches.
> 
> So, the idea of having regions that potentially span multiple basic blocks
> is not bad in general. However, I think you should better clarify what are
> the constraints (at least, you should answer to my questions from before).
I agree! Thanks for pointing that out.
> If we decide to use those new intrinsics, then those should be experimental
> (at least to start).
Agreed.

-Matt
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:07 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Introduction
> > -----------------
> > Currently llvm-mca only accepts assembly code as input. We would like
to
> > extend llvm-mca to support object files, allowing users to analyze the
> > performance of binaries. The proposed changes (which involve both
> > clang and llvm) optionally introduce an object file section, but this
can
> > be
> > stripped-out if desired.
> >
> > For the llvm-mca binary support feature to be useful, a user needs to
tell
> > llvm-mca which portions of their code they would like analyzed.
Currently,
> > this is accomplished via assembly comments. However, assembly comments
are
> > not
> > preserved in object files, and this has encouraged this RFC. For the
> > proposed
> > binary support, we need to introduce changes to clang and llvm to
allow the
> > user's object code to be recognized by llvm-mca:
> >
> > * We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of code they
want
> >    analyzed by llvm-mca.
> > * We need the information defining the user's region of code to be
> > maintained
> >    in the object file so that llvm-mca can analyze the desired
region(s)
> > from the
> >    object file.
> >
> > We define a "code region" as a subset of a user's
program that is to be
> > analyzed via llvm-mca. The sequence of instructions to be analyzed is
> > represented as a pair: <start, end> where the 'start'
marks the beginning
> > of
> > the user's source code and 'end' terminates the sequence.
The instructions
> > between 'start' and 'end' form the region that can be
analyzed by llvm-mca
> > at a
> > later time.
> >
> > Example
> > -----------
> > Before we go into the details of this proposed change, let's first
look at
> > a
> > simple example:
> >
> > // example.c -- Analyze a dot-product expression.
> > double test(double x, double y) {
> >    double result = 0.0;
> >    __mca_code_region_start(42);
> >    result += x * y;
> >    __mca_code_region_end();
> >    return result;
> > }
> >
> > In the example above, we have identified a code region, in this case a
> > single
> > dot-product expression. For the sake of brevity and simplicity,
we've
> > chosen
> > a very simple example, but in reality a more complicated example could
use
> > multiple expressions. We have also denoted this region as number 42.
That
> > identifier is only for the user, and simplifies reading an llvm-mca
> > analysis
> > report later.
> >
> > When this code is compiled, the region markers (the mca_code_region
> > markers)
> > are transformed into assembly labels. While the markers are presented
as
> > function calls, in reality they are no-ops.
> >
> > test:
> > pushq   %rbp
> > movq    %rsp, %rbp
> > movsd   %xmm0, -8(%rbp)
> > movsd   %xmm1, -16(%rbp)
> > .Lmca_code_region_start_0: # LLVM-MCA-START ID: 42
> > xorps   %xmm0, %xmm0
> > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > movsd   -8(%rbp), %xmm0
> > mulsd   -16(%rbp), %xmm0
> > addsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > .Lmca_code_region_end_0: # LLVM-MCA-END ID: 42
> > movsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > popq    %rbp
> > retq
> > .section        .mca_code_regions,"", at progbits
> > .quad   42
> > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_start_0
> > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_end_0-.Lmca_code_region_start_0
> >
> > The assembly has been trimmed to show the portions relevant to this
RFC.
> > Notice the labels enclose the user's defined region, and that they
> > preserve the
> > user's arbitrary region identifier, the ever-so-important region
42.
> >
> > In the object file section .mca_code_regions, we have noted the
user's
> > region
> > identifier (.quad 42), start address, and region size. A more
complicated
> > example can have multiple regions defined within a single
.mca_code_regions
> > section. This section can be read by llvm-mca, allowing llvm-mca to
take
> > object files as input instead of assembly source.
> >
> > Details
> > ---------
> > We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of code they want
> > analyzed
> > by llvm-mca. We solve this problem by introducing two intrinsics that
a
> > user can
> > specify, for identifying regions of code for analysis.
> >
> > The two intrinsics are: llvm.mca.code.regions.start and
> > llvm.mca.code.regions.end. A user can identify a code region by
inserting
> > the
> > mca_code_region_start and mca_code_region_end markers. These are
simply
> > clang builtins and are transformed into the aforementioned intrinsics
> > during
> > compilation. The code between the intrinsics are what we call
"code
> > regions"
> > and are to be easily identifiable by llvm-mca; any code between a
start/end
> > pair can be analyzed by llvm-mca at a later time. A user can define
> > multiple
> > non-overlapping code regions within their program.
> >
> > The llvm.mca.code.region.start intrinsic takes an integer constant as
its
> > only
> > argument. This argument is implemented as a metadata i32, and is only
used
> > when generating llvm-mca reports. This value allows a user to more
easily
> > identify a specific code region. llvm.mca.code.region.end takes no
> > arguments.
> > Since we disallow nesting of regions, the first 'end'
intrinsic lexically
> > following a 'start' intrinsic represents the end of that code
region.
> >
> > Now that we have a solution for identifying regions for analysis, we
now
> > need a
> > way for preserving that information to be read at a later time. To
> > accomplish
> > this we propose adding a new section (.mca_code_regions) to the object
file
> > generated by llvm. During code generation, the start/end intrinsics
> > described
> > above will be transformed into start/end labels in assembly. When llvm
> > generates the object file from the user's code, these start/end
labels
> > form a
> > pair of values identifying the start of the user's code region,
and size.
> > The
> > size represents the number of bytes between the start and end address
of
> > the
> > labels. Note that the labels are emitted during assembly printing. We
hope
> > that these labels have no influence on code generation or basic-block
> > placement. However, the target assembler strategy for handling labels
is
> > outside of our control.
> >
> > This proposed change affects the size of a binary, but only if the
user
> > calls
> > the start/end builtins mentioned above. The additional size of the
> > .mca_code_regions section, which we imagine to be very small (to the
order
> > of a
> > few bytes), can trivially be stripped by tools like 'strip' or
'objcopy'.
> >
> > Implementation Status
> > ------------------------------
> > We currently have the proposed changes implemented at the url posted
below.
> > This initial patch only targets ELF object files, and does not handle
> > relocatable addresses. Since the start of a code region is represented
as
> > an
> > assembly label, and referenced in the .mca_code_regions section, that
> > address
> > is relocatable. That value can be represented as section-relative
> > relocatable
> > symbol (.text + addend), but we are not handling that case yet.
Instead,
> > the
> > proposed changes only handle linked/executable object files.
> >
> > For purposes of review and to communicate the idea, the change is
> > presented as a monolithic patch here:
> >
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D54603
> >
> > The change is presented as a monolithic patch; however, if accepted
> > the patch will be split into three smaller patches:
> > 1. The introduction of the builtins to clang.
> > 2. The llvm portion (the added intrinsics).
> > 3. The llvm-mca portion.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Matt
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >

via llvm-dev

2018-Nov-22 19:21 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

I want to clarify a few restrictions of llvm-mca code regions that this RFC
proposes:

1) All llvm-mca code regions must start with an llvm.mca.code.region.start
intrinsic and end with
an llvm.mca.code.region.end intrinsic.  This rule is enforced at the IR level in
the IR verifier.

2) llvm-mca code regions cannot nest.  This restriction implies that an 
llvm.mca.code.region.start
must have a llvm.mca.code.region.end intrinsic without any other llvm.mca start
intrinsics
between the two. The current implementation in the patch enforces this
restriction at the
IR level via the IR Verifier.

3) An llvm-mca code region cannot span multiple basic blocks.  llvm-mca  does
not follow
branches (yet).  Instead, a branch instruction is treated by llvm-mca like any
other instruction.
The current patch associated with this RFC does not enforce this restriction.  I
plan on updating
the patch to enforce that a code region can only belong to a single basic block.
This is a simple
check, ensuring that both the llvm.mca.code.region.start and accompanying end
intrinsics live
in the same basic block. I imagine adding this check at the IR level when we
also verify points 1 and 2
above.  That will keep the code-region verification logic isolated to the IR
verifier.  The start/end
intrinsics should not have any uses, so I'm not sure that they would be
moved/sunk on behalf
of any other instruction.  In other words, I do not imagine that a start and end
would be split
apart due to later MI optimizations.  If I discover that such a case occurs,
then I might add the
basic-block check prior to emitting the code region data to the object file.   
Once  llvm-mca  is
updated to handle branches, then we can remove this constraint.

-Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Matt
Davis via llvm-
> dev
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:47 AM
> To: Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Di Biagio, Andrea
> <Andrea.Dibiagio at sony.com>; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> > About the suggested design:
> > I like the idea of being able to identify code regions using a numeric
> > identifier.
> > However, what happens if a code region spans through multiple basic
blocks?
> 
> The current patch does not take into consideration cases where the
> region start and end intrinsics are placed in different basic blocks.
> Such would be the case if a region is defined to span multiple blocks.
> This would be similar to the current case where a user places a
> #LLVM-MCA-BEGIN assembly comment in one block and an #LLVM-MCA-END in
> another.  However, as you point out below, if the user does this in the
> source code via intrinsics (just what this patch is proposing), then
> there is a chance that optimizations might change the layout of the
> instructions and confuse the ordering of the MCA intrinsics.
> 
> Since MCA does not follow branches (MCA just treats a branch as it would
> a non-branching instruction), it seems that a user should be aware that
> defining MCA code regions that span multiple blocks might result in an
> unexpected analysis.  While we do not discourage this, it seems like
> such a case will probably not produce an expected result for the user.
> We could introduce a warning, or automatically divide the regions so
> that a single region can only contain a single block.
> 
> > My understanding is that code regions are not allowed to overlap. So,
it
> > makes sense if ` __mca_code_region_end()` doesn't take an ID as
input.
> > However, what if ` __mca_code_region_end()` ends in a different basic
block?
> >
> > `__mca_code_region_start()` has to always dominate `
> > __mca_code_region_end()`. This is trivial to verify when both calls
are in
> > a same basic block; however, we need to make sure that the
relationship is
> > still the same when the `end()` call is in a different basic block.
> > That would not be enough. I think we should also verify  that `
> > __mca_code_region_end()` always post-dominates the call to
> > `__mca_code_region_start()`.
> 
> In any case this patch should probably check dominance of the
> intrinsics, even though MCA does not follow branches and MCA does not
> not explicitly forbid a region from containing multiple blocks.
> 
> >
> > My question is: what happens with basic block reordering? We don't
know the
> > layout of basic blocks until we reach code emission. How does it work
for
> > regions that span through multiple basic blocks?. I think your RFC
should
> > clarify this aspect.
> >
> > As a side note: at the moment, llvm-mca doesn't know how to deal
with
> > branches. So, for simplicity we could force code regions to only
contain
> > instructions from a single basic block.
> >
> > However, In future we may want to teach llvm-mca how to analyze
branchy
> > code too. For example, we could introduce a simple control-flow
analysis in
> > llvm-mca, and use an external "branch trace" information
(for example, a
> > perf trace generated by an external tool) to decorate branches with
with
> > branch probabilities (similarly to what we currently do in LLVM with
PGO).
> > We could then use that knowledge to model branch prediction and
simulate
> > what happens in the presence of multiple branches.
> >
> > So, the idea of having regions that potentially span multiple basic
blocks
> > is not bad in general. However, I think you should better clarify what
are
> > the constraints (at least, you should answer to my questions from
before).
> 
> I agree! Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> > If we decide to use those new intrinsics, then those should be
experimental
> > (at least to start).
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:07 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Introduction
> > > -----------------
> > > Currently llvm-mca only accepts assembly code as input. We would
like to
> > > extend llvm-mca to support object files, allowing users to
analyze the
> > > performance of binaries. The proposed changes (which involve both
> > > clang and llvm) optionally introduce an object file section, but
this can
> > > be
> > > stripped-out if desired.
> > >
> > > For the llvm-mca binary support feature to be useful, a user
needs to tell
> > > llvm-mca which portions of their code they would like analyzed.
Currently,
> > > this is accomplished via assembly comments. However, assembly
comments are
> > > not
> > > preserved in object files, and this has encouraged this RFC. For
the
> > > proposed
> > > binary support, we need to introduce changes to clang and llvm to
allow the
> > > user's object code to be recognized by llvm-mca:
> > >
> > > * We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of code
they want
> > >    analyzed by llvm-mca.
> > > * We need the information defining the user's region of code
to be
> > > maintained
> > >    in the object file so that llvm-mca can analyze the desired
region(s)
> > > from the
> > >    object file.
> > >
> > > We define a "code region" as a subset of a user's
program that is to be
> > > analyzed via llvm-mca. The sequence of instructions to be
analyzed is
> > > represented as a pair: <start, end> where the
'start' marks the beginning
> > > of
> > > the user's source code and 'end' terminates the
sequence. The instructions
> > > between 'start' and 'end' form the region that
can be analyzed by llvm-mca
> > > at a
> > > later time.
> > >
> > > Example
> > > -----------
> > > Before we go into the details of this proposed change, let's
first look at
> > > a
> > > simple example:
> > >
> > > // example.c -- Analyze a dot-product expression.
> > > double test(double x, double y) {
> > >    double result = 0.0;
> > >    __mca_code_region_start(42);
> > >    result += x * y;
> > >    __mca_code_region_end();
> > >    return result;
> > > }
> > >
> > > In the example above, we have identified a code region, in this
case a
> > > single
> > > dot-product expression. For the sake of brevity and simplicity,
we've
> > > chosen
> > > a very simple example, but in reality a more complicated example
could use
> > > multiple expressions. We have also denoted this region as number
42. That
> > > identifier is only for the user, and simplifies reading an
llvm-mca
> > > analysis
> > > report later.
> > >
> > > When this code is compiled, the region markers (the
mca_code_region
> > > markers)
> > > are transformed into assembly labels. While the markers are
presented as
> > > function calls, in reality they are no-ops.
> > >
> > > test:
> > > pushq   %rbp
> > > movq    %rsp, %rbp
> > > movsd   %xmm0, -8(%rbp)
> > > movsd   %xmm1, -16(%rbp)
> > > .Lmca_code_region_start_0: # LLVM-MCA-START ID: 42
> > > xorps   %xmm0, %xmm0
> > > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > > movsd   -8(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > mulsd   -16(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > addsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > > .Lmca_code_region_end_0: # LLVM-MCA-END ID: 42
> > > movsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > popq    %rbp
> > > retq
> > > .section        .mca_code_regions,"", at progbits
> > > .quad   42
> > > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_start_0
> > > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_end_0-.Lmca_code_region_start_0
> > >
> > > The assembly has been trimmed to show the portions relevant to
this RFC.
> > > Notice the labels enclose the user's defined region, and that
they
> > > preserve the
> > > user's arbitrary region identifier, the ever-so-important
region 42.
> > >
> > > In the object file section .mca_code_regions, we have noted the
user's
> > > region
> > > identifier (.quad 42), start address, and region size. A more
complicated
> > > example can have multiple regions defined within a single
.mca_code_regions
> > > section. This section can be read by llvm-mca, allowing llvm-mca
to take
> > > object files as input instead of assembly source.
> > >
> > > Details
> > > ---------
> > > We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of code they
want
> > > analyzed
> > > by llvm-mca. We solve this problem by introducing two intrinsics
that a
> > > user can
> > > specify, for identifying regions of code for analysis.
> > >
> > > The two intrinsics are: llvm.mca.code.regions.start and
> > > llvm.mca.code.regions.end. A user can identify a code region by
inserting
> > > the
> > > mca_code_region_start and mca_code_region_end markers. These are
simply
> > > clang builtins and are transformed into the aforementioned
intrinsics
> > > during
> > > compilation. The code between the intrinsics are what we call
"code
> > > regions"
> > > and are to be easily identifiable by llvm-mca; any code between a
start/end
> > > pair can be analyzed by llvm-mca at a later time. A user can
define
> > > multiple
> > > non-overlapping code regions within their program.
> > >
> > > The llvm.mca.code.region.start intrinsic takes an integer
constant as its
> > > only
> > > argument. This argument is implemented as a metadata i32, and is
only used
> > > when generating llvm-mca reports. This value allows a user to
more easily
> > > identify a specific code region. llvm.mca.code.region.end takes
no
> > > arguments.
> > > Since we disallow nesting of regions, the first 'end'
intrinsic lexically
> > > following a 'start' intrinsic represents the end of that
code region.
> > >
> > > Now that we have a solution for identifying regions for analysis,
we now
> > > need a
> > > way for preserving that information to be read at a later time.
To
> > > accomplish
> > > this we propose adding a new section (.mca_code_regions) to the
object file
> > > generated by llvm. During code generation, the start/end
intrinsics
> > > described
> > > above will be transformed into start/end labels in assembly. When
llvm
> > > generates the object file from the user's code, these
start/end labels
> > > form a
> > > pair of values identifying the start of the user's code
region, and size.
> > > The
> > > size represents the number of bytes between the start and end
address of
> > > the
> > > labels. Note that the labels are emitted during assembly
printing. We hope
> > > that these labels have no influence on code generation or
basic-block
> > > placement. However, the target assembler strategy for handling
labels is
> > > outside of our control.
> > >
> > > This proposed change affects the size of a binary, but only if
the user
> > > calls
> > > the start/end builtins mentioned above. The additional size of
the
> > > .mca_code_regions section, which we imagine to be very small (to
the order
> > > of a
> > > few bytes), can trivially be stripped by tools like
'strip' or 'objcopy'.
> > >
> > > Implementation Status
> > > ------------------------------
> > > We currently have the proposed changes implemented at the url
posted below.
> > > This initial patch only targets ELF object files, and does not
handle
> > > relocatable addresses. Since the start of a code region is
represented as
> > > an
> > > assembly label, and referenced in the .mca_code_regions section,
that
> > > address
> > > is relocatable. That value can be represented as section-relative
> > > relocatable
> > > symbol (.text + addend), but we are not handling that case yet.
Instead,
> > > the
> > > proposed changes only handle linked/executable object files.
> > >
> > > For purposes of review and to communicate the idea, the change is
> > > presented as a monolithic patch here:
> > >
> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D54603
> > >
> > > The change is presented as a monolithic patch; however, if
accepted
> > > the patch will be split into three smaller patches:
> > > 1. The introduction of the builtins to clang.
> > > 2. The llvm portion (the added intrinsics).
> > > 3. The llvm-mca portion.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -Matt
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev

2018-Nov-27 17:08 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

Thanks for clarifying it Matt.

In general, I quite like your suggested design.

My only concern is about the semantic of the two new intrinsics. You design
doesn't allow mca ranges to span through multiple basic blocks. That
constraint is acceptable for now, since llvm-mca doesn't know how to deal
with control flow.
However, I am a bit concerned about what might happen in future if we
decide to let users specify code regions that span through multiple basic
blocks. Basically, I don't particularly like the idea of changing the
semantic of already existing intrinsic. A design that already accounts for
that particular scenario/future work would be ideal. That being said,
marking those new intrinsics as 'experimental' may be a good compromise
(at
least for now).

So, I am quite happy overall with the direction of this RFC.
However, I am interesting to hear from other developers about your
suggested design.
> This initial patch only targets ELF object files, and does not handlerelocatable addresses. Since the start of a code region is represented as an
assembly label, and referenced in the .mca_code_regions section, that
address
is relocatable.

This may be okay for now. However, it would be nice to remove that
constraint in future and add support to generic object files.

-Andrea

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 7:21 PM <Matthew.Davis at sony.com> wrote:
> I want to clarify a few restrictions of llvm-mca code regions that this
> RFC proposes:
>
> 1) All llvm-mca code regions must start with an llvm.mca.code.region.start
> intrinsic and end with
> an llvm.mca.code.region.end intrinsic.  This rule is enforced at the IR
> level in the IR verifier.
>
> 2) llvm-mca code regions cannot nest.  This restriction implies that an
> llvm.mca.code.region.start
> must have a llvm.mca.code.region.end intrinsic without any other llvm.mca
> start intrinsics
> between the two. The current implementation in the patch enforces this
> restriction at the
> IR level via the IR Verifier.
>
> 3) An llvm-mca code region cannot span multiple basic blocks.  llvm-mca
> does not follow
> branches (yet).  Instead, a branch instruction is treated by llvm-mca like
> any other instruction.
> The current patch associated with this RFC does not enforce this
> restriction.  I plan on updating
> the patch to enforce that a code region can only belong to a single basic
> block.  This is a simple
> check, ensuring that both the llvm.mca.code.region.start and accompanying
> end intrinsics live
> in the same basic block. I imagine adding this check at the IR level when
> we also verify points 1 and 2
> above.  That will keep the code-region verification logic isolated to the
> IR verifier.  The start/end
> intrinsics should not have any uses, so I'm not sure that they would be
> moved/sunk on behalf
> of any other instruction.  In other words, I do not imagine that a start
> and end would be split
> apart due to later MI optimizations.  If I discover that such a case
> occurs, then I might add the
> basic-block check prior to emitting the code region data to the object
> file.    Once  llvm-mca  is
> updated to handle branches, then we can remove this constraint.
>
> -Matt
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of
Matt
> Davis via llvm-
> > dev
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:47 AM
> > To: Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>
> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Di Biagio, Andrea
> > <Andrea.Dibiagio at sony.com>; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to
> llvm-mca.
> >
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> > Thanks for your input.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote:
> > [... snip ...]
> > > About the suggested design:
> > > I like the idea of being able to identify code regions using a
numeric
> > > identifier.
> > > However, what happens if a code region spans through multiple
basic
> blocks?
> >
> > The current patch does not take into consideration cases where the
> > region start and end intrinsics are placed in different basic blocks.
> > Such would be the case if a region is defined to span multiple blocks.
> > This would be similar to the current case where a user places a
> > #LLVM-MCA-BEGIN assembly comment in one block and an #LLVM-MCA-END in
> > another.  However, as you point out below, if the user does this in
the
> > source code via intrinsics (just what this patch is proposing), then
> > there is a chance that optimizations might change the layout of the
> > instructions and confuse the ordering of the MCA intrinsics.
> >
> > Since MCA does not follow branches (MCA just treats a branch as it
would
> > a non-branching instruction), it seems that a user should be aware
that
> > defining MCA code regions that span multiple blocks might result in an
> > unexpected analysis.  While we do not discourage this, it seems like
> > such a case will probably not produce an expected result for the user.
> > We could introduce a warning, or automatically divide the regions so
> > that a single region can only contain a single block.
> >
> > > My understanding is that code regions are not allowed to overlap.
So,
> it
> > > makes sense if ` __mca_code_region_end()` doesn't take an ID
as input.
> > > However, what if ` __mca_code_region_end()` ends in a different
basic
> block?
> > >
> > > `__mca_code_region_start()` has to always dominate `
> > > __mca_code_region_end()`. This is trivial to verify when both
calls
> are in
> > > a same basic block; however, we need to make sure that the
> relationship is
> > > still the same when the `end()` call is in a different basic
block.
> > > That would not be enough. I think we should also verify  that `
> > > __mca_code_region_end()` always post-dominates the call to
> > > `__mca_code_region_start()`.
> >
> > In any case this patch should probably check dominance of the
> > intrinsics, even though MCA does not follow branches and MCA does not
> > not explicitly forbid a region from containing multiple blocks.
> >
> > >
> > > My question is: what happens with basic block reordering? We
don't
> know the
> > > layout of basic blocks until we reach code emission. How does it
work
> for
> > > regions that span through multiple basic blocks?. I think your
RFC
> should
> > > clarify this aspect.
> > >
> > > As a side note: at the moment, llvm-mca doesn't know how to
deal with
> > > branches. So, for simplicity we could force code regions to only
> contain
> > > instructions from a single basic block.
> > >
> > > However, In future we may want to teach llvm-mca how to analyze
branchy
> > > code too. For example, we could introduce a simple control-flow
> analysis in
> > > llvm-mca, and use an external "branch trace"
information (for example,
> a
> > > perf trace generated by an external tool) to decorate branches
with
> with
> > > branch probabilities (similarly to what we currently do in LLVM
with
> PGO).
> > > We could then use that knowledge to model branch prediction and
> simulate
> > > what happens in the presence of multiple branches.
> > >
> > > So, the idea of having regions that potentially span multiple
basic
> blocks
> > > is not bad in general. However, I think you should better clarify
what
> are
> > > the constraints (at least, you should answer to my questions from
> before).
> >
> > I agree! Thanks for pointing that out.
> >
> > > If we decide to use those new intrinsics, then those should be
> experimental
> > > (at least to start).
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:07 PM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Introduction
> > > > -----------------
> > > > Currently llvm-mca only accepts assembly code as input. We
would
> like to
> > > > extend llvm-mca to support object files, allowing users to
analyze
> the
> > > > performance of binaries. The proposed changes (which involve
both
> > > > clang and llvm) optionally introduce an object file section,
but
> this can
> > > > be
> > > > stripped-out if desired.
> > > >
> > > > For the llvm-mca binary support feature to be useful, a user
needs
> to tell
> > > > llvm-mca which portions of their code they would like
analyzed.
> Currently,
> > > > this is accomplished via assembly comments. However,
assembly
> comments are
> > > > not
> > > > preserved in object files, and this has encouraged this RFC.
For the
> > > > proposed
> > > > binary support, we need to introduce changes to clang and
llvm to
> allow the
> > > > user's object code to be recognized by llvm-mca:
> > > >
> > > > * We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of
code they
> want
> > > >    analyzed by llvm-mca.
> > > > * We need the information defining the user's region of
code to be
> > > > maintained
> > > >    in the object file so that llvm-mca can analyze the
desired
> region(s)
> > > > from the
> > > >    object file.
> > > >
> > > > We define a "code region" as a subset of a
user's program that is to
> be
> > > > analyzed via llvm-mca. The sequence of instructions to be
analyzed is
> > > > represented as a pair: <start, end> where the
'start' marks the
> beginning
> > > > of
> > > > the user's source code and 'end' terminates the
sequence. The
> instructions
> > > > between 'start' and 'end' form the region
that can be analyzed by
> llvm-mca
> > > > at a
> > > > later time.
> > > >
> > > > Example
> > > > -----------
> > > > Before we go into the details of this proposed change,
let's first
> look at
> > > > a
> > > > simple example:
> > > >
> > > > // example.c -- Analyze a dot-product expression.
> > > > double test(double x, double y) {
> > > >    double result = 0.0;
> > > >    __mca_code_region_start(42);
> > > >    result += x * y;
> > > >    __mca_code_region_end();
> > > >    return result;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In the example above, we have identified a code region, in
this case
> a
> > > > single
> > > > dot-product expression. For the sake of brevity and
simplicity, we've
> > > > chosen
> > > > a very simple example, but in reality a more complicated
example
> could use
> > > > multiple expressions. We have also denoted this region as
number 42.
> That
> > > > identifier is only for the user, and simplifies reading an
llvm-mca
> > > > analysis
> > > > report later.
> > > >
> > > > When this code is compiled, the region markers (the
mca_code_region
> > > > markers)
> > > > are transformed into assembly labels. While the markers are
> presented as
> > > > function calls, in reality they are no-ops.
> > > >
> > > > test:
> > > > pushq   %rbp
> > > > movq    %rsp, %rbp
> > > > movsd   %xmm0, -8(%rbp)
> > > > movsd   %xmm1, -16(%rbp)
> > > > .Lmca_code_region_start_0: # LLVM-MCA-START ID: 42
> > > > xorps   %xmm0, %xmm0
> > > > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > > > movsd   -8(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > > mulsd   -16(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > > addsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > > movsd   %xmm0, -24(%rbp)
> > > > .Lmca_code_region_end_0: # LLVM-MCA-END ID: 42
> > > > movsd   -24(%rbp), %xmm0
> > > > popq    %rbp
> > > > retq
> > > > .section        .mca_code_regions,"", at progbits
> > > > .quad   42
> > > > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_start_0
> > > > .quad   .Lmca_code_region_end_0-.Lmca_code_region_start_0
> > > >
> > > > The assembly has been trimmed to show the portions relevant
to this
> RFC.
> > > > Notice the labels enclose the user's defined region, and
that they
> > > > preserve the
> > > > user's arbitrary region identifier, the
ever-so-important region 42.
> > > >
> > > > In the object file section .mca_code_regions, we have noted
the
> user's
> > > > region
> > > > identifier (.quad 42), start address, and region size. A
more
> complicated
> > > > example can have multiple regions defined within a single
> .mca_code_regions
> > > > section. This section can be read by llvm-mca, allowing
llvm-mca to
> take
> > > > object files as input instead of assembly source.
> > > >
> > > > Details
> > > > ---------
> > > > We need a way for a user to identify a region/block of code
they want
> > > > analyzed
> > > > by llvm-mca. We solve this problem by introducing two
intrinsics
> that a
> > > > user can
> > > > specify, for identifying regions of code for analysis.
> > > >
> > > > The two intrinsics are: llvm.mca.code.regions.start and
> > > > llvm.mca.code.regions.end. A user can identify a code region
by
> inserting
> > > > the
> > > > mca_code_region_start and mca_code_region_end markers. These
are
> simply
> > > > clang builtins and are transformed into the aforementioned
intrinsics
> > > > during
> > > > compilation. The code between the intrinsics are what we
call "code
> > > > regions"
> > > > and are to be easily identifiable by llvm-mca; any code
between a
> start/end
> > > > pair can be analyzed by llvm-mca at a later time. A user can
define
> > > > multiple
> > > > non-overlapping code regions within their program.
> > > >
> > > > The llvm.mca.code.region.start intrinsic takes an integer
constant
> as its
> > > > only
> > > > argument. This argument is implemented as a metadata i32,
and is
> only used
> > > > when generating llvm-mca reports. This value allows a user
to more
> easily
> > > > identify a specific code region. llvm.mca.code.region.end
takes no
> > > > arguments.
> > > > Since we disallow nesting of regions, the first
'end' intrinsic
> lexically
> > > > following a 'start' intrinsic represents the end of
that code region.
> > > >
> > > > Now that we have a solution for identifying regions for
analysis, we
> now
> > > > need a
> > > > way for preserving that information to be read at a later
time. To
> > > > accomplish
> > > > this we propose adding a new section (.mca_code_regions) to
the
> object file
> > > > generated by llvm. During code generation, the start/end
intrinsics
> > > > described
> > > > above will be transformed into start/end labels in assembly.
When
> llvm
> > > > generates the object file from the user's code, these
start/end
> labels
> > > > form a
> > > > pair of values identifying the start of the user's code
region, and
> size.
> > > > The
> > > > size represents the number of bytes between the start and
end
> address of
> > > > the
> > > > labels. Note that the labels are emitted during assembly
printing.
> We hope
> > > > that these labels have no influence on code generation or
basic-block
> > > > placement. However, the target assembler strategy for
handling
> labels is
> > > > outside of our control.
> > > >
> > > > This proposed change affects the size of a binary, but only
if the
> user
> > > > calls
> > > > the start/end builtins mentioned above. The additional size
of the
> > > > .mca_code_regions section, which we imagine to be very small
(to the
> order
> > > > of a
> > > > few bytes), can trivially be stripped by tools like
'strip' or
> 'objcopy'.
> > > >
> > > > Implementation Status
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > We currently have the proposed changes implemented at the
url posted
> below.
> > > > This initial patch only targets ELF object files, and does
not handle
> > > > relocatable addresses. Since the start of a code region is
> represented as
> > > > an
> > > > assembly label, and referenced in the .mca_code_regions
section, that
> > > > address
> > > > is relocatable. That value can be represented as
section-relative
> > > > relocatable
> > > > symbol (.text + addend), but we are not handling that case
yet.
> Instead,
> > > > the
> > > > proposed changes only handle linked/executable object files.
> > > >
> > > > For purposes of review and to communicate the idea, the
change is
> > > > presented as a monolithic patch here:
> > > >
> > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D54603
> > > >
> > > > The change is presented as a monolithic patch; however, if
accepted
> > > > the patch will be split into three smaller patches:
> > > > 1. The introduction of the builtins to clang.
> > > > 2. The llvm portion (the added intrinsics).
> > > > 3. The llvm-mca portion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > -Matt
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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/20181127/e9afd5ed/attachment-0001.html>

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more seemingly similar threads

llvm dev - Nov 2018 - [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

[llvm-dev] [RFC][llvm-mca] Adding binary support to llvm-mca.

Apparently Analagous Threads