llvm dev - Apr 2021 - Supporting Regular and Thin LTO with a Single LTO Bitcode Format

This is a really good thread to read:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-April/122469.html
<https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-April/122469.html>

There is no fundamental technical reasons why this cannot happen but it requires
lots of work to fine tuning the pipeline (yes, fullLTO and thinLTO uses
different pipeline) so that it reaches a good balance of performance/build
overhead for general users.

Steven
> On Apr 13, 2021, at 2:23 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> +Matthew and Teresa for any context they might have
> 
> High level sounds like a reasonable thing to me, for what it's worth.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:19 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> We're using regular LTO for our Clang toolchain build because we
don't mind spending more resources to squeeze out as much performance as
possible. However, when looking into our build performance, I've noticed
that we only spent about 1/3 of the total build time in building distribution
components, the rest is spent on building unit tests and tools that are only
used by lit tests. For the latter, we don't care about the performance, so
it'd be nice to avoid doing regular LTO to speed up the build.
>> 
>> The idea I had would be to use a single LTO bitcode format for all
translation units, and then decide only at link time whether to use regular LTO
for distribution components or ThinLTO for everything else.
>> 
>> After doing some research, I found the "Supporting Regular and
Thin LTO with a Single LTO Bitcode Format" talk presented by Matthew Voss
at LLVM Developers’ Meeting 2019 which does exactly what I described, but it
seems like this was only implemented downstream.
>> 
>> Has there been any progress on upstreaming the implementation? Is there
any way to do what I described using the in-tree LTO implementation?
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20210413/9673ecad/attachment.html>

Hi Petr,

This does sound like a good use case for our pipeline. We’ve seen good runtime
performance overall, as we stated in the talk. I’ve been working on upstreaming
our patches off and on for a couple months now. Our pipeline needs to be ported
to the NPM, but once that work is done, the patch is ready for review. I should
be able to finish that work within the next month or two and would love to get
some feedback on our approach.

Thanks,
Matthew


From: Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:39 PM
To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
Cc: Petr Hosek <phosek at google.com>; Voss, Matthew <Matthew.Voss at
sony.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Supporting Regular and Thin LTO with a Single LTO
Bitcode Format

This is a really good thread to read:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-April/122469.html

There is no fundamental technical reasons why this cannot happen but it requires
lots of work to fine tuning the pipeline (yes, fullLTO and thinLTO uses
different pipeline) so that it reaches a good balance of performance/build
overhead for general users.

Steven


On Apr 13, 2021, at 2:23 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

+Matthew and Teresa for any context they might have

High level sounds like a reasonable thing to me, for what it's worth.

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:19 PM Petr Hosek via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:


We're using regular LTO for our Clang toolchain build because we don't
mind spending more resources to squeeze out as much performance as possible.
However, when looking into our build performance, I've noticed that we only
spent about 1/3 of the total build time in building distribution components, the
rest is spent on building unit tests and tools that are only used by lit tests.
For the latter, we don't care about the performance, so it'd be nice to
avoid doing regular LTO to speed up the build.

The idea I had would be to use a single LTO bitcode format for all translation
units, and then decide only at link time whether to use regular LTO for
distribution components or ThinLTO for everything else.

After doing some research, I found the "Supporting Regular and Thin LTO
with a Single LTO Bitcode Format" talk presented by Matthew Voss at LLVM
Developers’ Meeting 2019 which does exactly what I described, but it seems like
this was only implemented downstream.

Has there been any progress on upstreaming the implementation? Is there any way
to do what I described using the in-tree LTO implementation?
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
https://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/20210413/863ae1b6/attachment.html>