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

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

Matt Davis via llvm-dev

2018-Dec-03 22:38 UTC

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

Hi Andrea,

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 01:21:33PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio
wrote:> So, I have been thinking a bit more about this whole design.
> 
> The more I think about your suggested design, the more I am convinced that
> we should do something more to support ranges in binary object files too.
> My understanding is that the reason why we don't support object files
in
> general, is because of the presence of relocations. That is because a
> region start marker is effectively symbol relative, and the symbol (a
> function) would be relocated in the final executable.
> You mentioned to me that resolving even a 'simple' symbol-relative
> relocation is not trivial, beause it requires specific knowledge about the
> binary format, and the target (i.e. how relocations are encoded is target
> specific). I am surprised that there is not a utility library for resolving
> relocations.. but I am not familiar with that part of the compiler. I was
> hoping that there was a target specific interface to use in this case...
There might be a better way of resolving the relocs, but from what I saw
looking at llvm-objdump and other related tools, it seems that resolving
the relocated symbol is a target specific effort.  I also spent sometime
sniffing around ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyld.cpp which also
performs the reloc resolution.  I should clarify that I too am not an
expert in llvm's utilities for performing symbol/reloc resolution, and
perhaps someone in the community can point me in the right direction.  I
can clearly see the reloc data in the object file via tools like
objdump; however, accessing the relocs via
llvm::object::ObjectFile::relocations() did not produce address values
that we could use (values of zero).

I was hoping that, for a first pass at this patch, supporting just
executables would be okay.  That keeps this initial patch set simple,
and hopefully will encourage others to take a peek at it, since it's
less daunting than what it might otherwise be.  Of course, there is the
concern that this initial patch will lock us into a design that will be
more complicated to unravel later.
> An alternative approach would require that you define your own
> "symbol-relative" reference. After all, ranges are just a
sequences of
> instructions in a function. If a function symbol is described by the symbol
> table, then you should be able to obtain its offset in the .text section.
> So, you could potentially encode your own symbol+offset. However, the
> linker would not be able to understand your "custom relocation",
and
> information about regions in the final elf would be basically broken.
> So,that would not be a solution...
> 
> I don't know honestly what is the best approach to use in this case.
> As a compromise, it would not be a bad idea to add the ability to specify
> ranges from command line. What do you think?
> Still, from a user point of view, the idea that we don't support object
> files in general sounds like a big limitation.
I agree, only supporting executables is a limitation.  However, I'd
like to land the base support now and add in the additional
features/support after this large patch set lands.  But I can see
where landing the whole thing entirely also makes sense.
> About the new experimental intrinsics: those would definitely work well for
> the simple case where instructions are from the same basic block.
> However, some/most of the constraints that you plan to add will have to
> change if in future we decide to allow ranges that potentially cross
> multiple basic blocks. How will the rules/constraints on those new
> intrinsics change? I just want to make sure that the suggested design is
> future-proof.
Since the llvm/clang parts of the code are just responsible for
collecting where a range starts/ends, I hope that we can remove some
of the baked-in constraints that are specified in IR/Verifier.cpp.
As you pointed out earlier in this thread, we might want to
introduce a dominance check if/when we lift the one-basic-block
restriction. 

-Matt
> 
> -Andrea
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:08 PM Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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
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.
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >

Clement Courbet via llvm-dev

2018-Dec-10 14:59 UTC

head link

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

Hi Matt/Andrea,

I see pros and cons for IACA-style markers vs intrinsics.
On the one hand, IACA-style markers are very magical, and not very visible
in both the source and object code. Using IACA-style markers has the
advantage that you can use llvm-mca as a drop-in replacement for IACA, or
even to compare their outputs on the exact same binary. They also do not
require tooling on the compiler side and allow comparing the output of
several compilers.
On the other hand, IACA-style markers do not have a equivalent on other
architectures, and I'm not sure inventing new ones is a good idea :) I
think the latter makes them pretty much a no-go for llvm-mca as I don't
think we'll want to teach each target how to parse code regions. That's
much better handled in a target-agnostic way by the object. Intel got away
with them because they only had to support one architecture.

tl;dr: In the case of llvm-mca, I like your design better than the markers.

In terms of future-proofness of only allowing regions within a basic block,
are we confident we can actually ever simulate branches apart from "always
taken, perfectly predicated" loop ? Even this simple need requires knowing
quite a few details on the frontend. The current design could handle this
use case with the addition of an external "loop mode" option to MCA.
If
there are no other strong use cases, I would advocate for experimental
intrinsics unless people can contribute other example use cases.

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:38 PM Matt Davis <matthew.davis at sony.com>
wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 01:21:33PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote:
> > So, I have been thinking a bit more about this whole design.
> >
> > The more I think about your suggested design, the more I am convinced
> that
> > we should do something more to support ranges in binary object files
too.
> > My understanding is that the reason why we don't support object
files in
> > general, is because of the presence of relocations. That is because a
> > region start marker is effectively symbol relative, and the symbol (a
> > function) would be relocated in the final executable.
> > You mentioned to me that resolving even a 'simple'
symbol-relative
> > relocation is not trivial, beause it requires specific knowledge about
> the
> > binary format, and the target (i.e. how relocations are encoded is
target
> > specific). I am surprised that there is not a utility library for
> resolving
> > relocations.. but I am not familiar with that part of the compiler. I
was
> > hoping that there was a target specific interface to use in this
case...
>
> There might be a better way of resolving the relocs, but from what I saw
> looking at llvm-objdump and other related tools, it seems that resolving
> the relocated symbol is a target specific effort.  I also spent sometime
> sniffing around ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyld.cpp which also
> performs the reloc resolution.  I should clarify that I too am not an
> expert in llvm's utilities for performing symbol/reloc resolution, and
> perhaps someone in the community can point me in the right direction.  I
> can clearly see the reloc data in the object file via tools like
> objdump; however, accessing the relocs via
> llvm::object::ObjectFile::relocations() did not produce address values
> that we could use (values of zero).
>
> I was hoping that, for a first pass at this patch, supporting just
> executables would be okay.  That keeps this initial patch set simple,
> and hopefully will encourage others to take a peek at it, since it's
> less daunting than what it might otherwise be.  Of course, there is the
> concern that this initial patch will lock us into a design that will be
> more complicated to unravel later.
>
> > An alternative approach would require that you define your own
> > "symbol-relative" reference. After all, ranges are just a
sequences of
> > instructions in a function. If a function symbol is described by the
> symbol
> > table, then you should be able to obtain its offset in the .text
section.
> > So, you could potentially encode your own symbol+offset. However, the
> > linker would not be able to understand your "custom
relocation", and
> > information about regions in the final elf would be basically broken.
> > So,that would not be a solution...
> >
> > I don't know honestly what is the best approach to use in this
case.
> > As a compromise, it would not be a bad idea to add the ability to
specify
> > ranges from command line. What do you think?
> > Still, from a user point of view, the idea that we don't support
object
> > files in general sounds like a big limitation.
>
> I agree, only supporting executables is a limitation.  However, I'd
> like to land the base support now and add in the additional
> features/support after this large patch set lands.  But I can see
> where landing the whole thing entirely also makes sense.
>
> > About the new experimental intrinsics: those would definitely work
well
> for
> > the simple case where instructions are from the same basic block.
> > However, some/most of the constraints that you plan to add will have
to
> > change if in future we decide to allow ranges that potentially cross
> > multiple basic blocks. How will the rules/constraints on those new
> > intrinsics change? I just want to make sure that the suggested design
is
> > future-proof.
>
> Since the llvm/clang parts of the code are just responsible for
> collecting where a range starts/ends, I hope that we can remove some
> of the baked-in constraints that are specified in IR/Verifier.cpp.
> As you pointed out earlier in this thread, we might want to
> introduce a dominance check if/when we lift the one-basic-block
> restriction.
>
> -Matt
>
> >
> > -Andrea
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:08 PM Andrea Di Biagio <
> andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 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.
> > >
> > > 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/20181210/a10588cd/attachment-0001.html>

Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev

2018-Dec-10 15:15 UTC

head link

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

+1 to what Clement said.
I believe the intrinsics are a better design to support many architectures.

IACA users are probably decorating their code with IACA_START / IACA_END
macros. One possibility is to provide a header that define these macros in
terms of the new intrinsics.

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:59 PM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com>
wrote:
> Hi Matt/Andrea,
>
> I see pros and cons for IACA-style markers vs intrinsics.
> On the one hand, IACA-style markers are very magical, and not very visible
> in both the source and object code. Using IACA-style markers has the
> advantage that you can use llvm-mca as a drop-in replacement for IACA, or
> even to compare their outputs on the exact same binary. They also do not
> require tooling on the compiler side and allow comparing the output of
> several compilers.
>On the other hand, IACA-style markers do not have a equivalent on
other> architectures, and I'm not sure inventing new ones is a good idea :) I
> think the latter makes them pretty much a no-go for llvm-mca as I don't
> think we'll want to teach each target how to parse code regions.
That's
> much better handled in a target-agnostic way by the object. Intel got away
> with them because they only had to support one architecture.
>
> tl;dr: In the case of llvm-mca, I like your design better than the markers.
>
> In terms of future-proofness of only allowing regions within a basic
> block, are we confident we can actually ever simulate branches apart from
> "always taken, perfectly predicated" loop ? Even this simple need
requires
> knowing quite a few details on the frontend. The current design could
> handle this use case with the addition of an external "loop mode"
option to
> MCA. If there are no other strong use cases, I would advocate for
> experimental intrinsics unless people can contribute other example use
> cases.
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:38 PM Matt Davis <matthew.davis at
sony.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 01:21:33PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote:
>> > So, I have been thinking a bit more about this whole design.
>> >
>> > The more I think about your suggested design, the more I am
convinced
>> that
>> > we should do something more to support ranges in binary object
files
>> too.
>> > My understanding is that the reason why we don't support
object files in
>> > general, is because of the presence of relocations. That is
because a
>> > region start marker is effectively symbol relative, and the symbol
(a
>> > function) would be relocated in the final executable.
>> > You mentioned to me that resolving even a 'simple'
symbol-relative
>> > relocation is not trivial, beause it requires specific knowledge
about
>> the
>> > binary format, and the target (i.e. how relocations are encoded is
>> target
>> > specific). I am surprised that there is not a utility library for
>> resolving
>> > relocations.. but I am not familiar with that part of the
compiler. I
>> was
>> > hoping that there was a target specific interface to use in this
case...
>>
>> There might be a better way of resolving the relocs, but from what I
saw
>> looking at llvm-objdump and other related tools, it seems that
resolving
>> the relocated symbol is a target specific effort.  I also spent
sometime
>> sniffing around ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyld.cpp which also
>> performs the reloc resolution.  I should clarify that I too am not an
>> expert in llvm's utilities for performing symbol/reloc resolution,
and
>> perhaps someone in the community can point me in the right direction. 
I
>> can clearly see the reloc data in the object file via tools like
>> objdump; however, accessing the relocs via
>> llvm::object::ObjectFile::relocations() did not produce address values
>> that we could use (values of zero).
>>
>> I was hoping that, for a first pass at this patch, supporting just
>> executables would be okay.  That keeps this initial patch set simple,
>> and hopefully will encourage others to take a peek at it, since
it's
>> less daunting than what it might otherwise be.  Of course, there is the
>> concern that this initial patch will lock us into a design that will be
>> more complicated to unravel later.
>>
>> > An alternative approach would require that you define your own
>> > "symbol-relative" reference. After all, ranges are just
a sequences of
>> > instructions in a function. If a function symbol is described by
the
>> symbol
>> > table, then you should be able to obtain its offset in the .text
>> section.
>> > So, you could potentially encode your own symbol+offset. However,
the
>> > linker would not be able to understand your "custom
relocation", and
>> > information about regions in the final elf would be basically
broken.
>> > So,that would not be a solution...
>> >
>> > I don't know honestly what is the best approach to use in this
case.
>> > As a compromise, it would not be a bad idea to add the ability to
>> specify
>> > ranges from command line. What do you think?
>> > Still, from a user point of view, the idea that we don't
support object
>> > files in general sounds like a big limitation.
>>
>> I agree, only supporting executables is a limitation.  However, I'd
>> like to land the base support now and add in the additional
>> features/support after this large patch set lands.  But I can see
>> where landing the whole thing entirely also makes sense.
>>
>> > About the new experimental intrinsics: those would definitely work
well
>> for
>> > the simple case where instructions are from the same basic block.
>> > However, some/most of the constraints that you plan to add will
have to
>> > change if in future we decide to allow ranges that potentially
cross
>> > multiple basic blocks. How will the rules/constraints on those new
>> > intrinsics change? I just want to make sure that the suggested
design is
>> > future-proof.
>>
>> Since the llvm/clang parts of the code are just responsible for
>> collecting where a range starts/ends, I hope that we can remove some
>> of the baked-in constraints that are specified in IR/Verifier.cpp.
>> As you pointed out earlier in this thread, we might want to
>> introduce a dominance check if/when we lift the one-basic-block
>> restriction.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> >
>> > -Andrea
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:08 PM Andrea Di Biagio <
>> andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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
>> 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.
>> > >
>> > > 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/20181210/a7947a16/attachment.html>

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more maybe matching threads

llvm dev - Dec 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