llvm dev - Jun 2016 - Tail call optimization is getting affected due to local function related optimization with IPRA

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de
<mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini
<mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya
<vivekvpandya at gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello ,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To solve this bug locally I have given preference to
tail call optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have
added following method to achieve this:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) {
>>>>>>   CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv();
>>>>>>   if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC
|| CC == CallingConv::HiPE)
>>>>>>     return true;
>>>>>>   return false;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call?
>>>>> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or
not?  If not then above method is inspired from
X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO().
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen?
>>>> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you
can inspect every *call site*.
>>> The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during
instruction selection (it is part of
X86TargetLowering::LowerCall()/IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization() for example).
>> 
>> Sorry i don't have access to the source code right now, can you
clarify if the backend can tail call when the IR didn't mark the call as
such, or if what you're referring to is "not honoring the tail call
From the IR and demoting to a normal call?
> 
> The backend does only tail call if the middleend marked the call with the
"tail" or "musttail" marker. But that happens for most
calls. We can only really transform a franction of those into real tail calls
later.
Thanks, so back to my original point: if we have to disable the CSR optimization
on function that “may be tail called”, it would still be better IMO to do
something like `llvm::any_of(callsites, isTailCall)` instead of
IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization().

— 
Mehdi

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160628/75660b11/attachment.html>

I have tried out the following code which examines each call site in a
module for tail call and do not perform optimization in such case:


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello ,
>>
>> To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call
>> optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I have
added
>> following method to achieve this:
>>
>> bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) {
>>   CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv();
>>   if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC || CC =>>
CallingConv::HiPE)
>>     return true;
>>   return false;
>> }
>>
>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed.
>>
>>
>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call?
>>
> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not?  If not
> then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO().
>
>
> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen?
> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can inspect
> every *call site*.
>
> The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during
> instruction selection (it is part of
> X86TargetLowering::LowerCall()/IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization() for
> example).
>
>
> Sorry i don't have access to the source code right now, can you clarify
if
> the backend can tail call when the IR didn't mark the call as such, or
if
> what you're referring to is "not honoring the tail call From the
IR and
> demoting to a normal call?
>
>
> The backend does only tail call if the middleend marked the call with the
> "tail" or "musttail" marker. But that happens for most
calls. We can only
> really transform a franction of those into real tail calls later.
>
>
> Thanks, so back to my original point: if we have to disable the CSR
> optimization on function that “may be tail called”, it would still be
> better IMO to do something like `llvm::any_of(callsites, isTailCall)`
> instead of IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization().
>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160629/dc8cede9/attachment.html>

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:51 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have tried out the following code which examines each call site in a
> module for tail call and do not perform optimization in such case:
>
bool RegUsageInfoCollector::isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) {
  const Module *M = F->getParent();
  for (const Function &Fu : *M)
    for (const BasicBlock &BB : Fu)
      for (const Instruction &II : BB) {
        if (auto CS = ImmutableCallSite(&II))
          if (CS.getCalledFunction() == F && CS.isTailCall()) {
            outs() << "Function : " << F->getName()
<< " is tailCall\n";
            return true;
          }
      }
  return false;
}

This allows many static function from sqlite3 code to be a candidate for
local function optimization (that is good compare to previous attempt) but
it fails at runtime. I will analyze it but before that I have test-case
which fails at -O2 but when I try -O2 -finline-hint-functions it works I am
currently analyzing it.

-Vivek

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at
apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello ,
>>>
>>> To solve this bug locally I have given preference to tail call
>>> optimization over local function related optimization in IPRA. I
have added
>>> following method to achieve this:
>>>
>>> bool isEligibleForTailCallOptimization(Function *F) {
>>>   CallingConv::ID CC = F->getCallingConv();
>>>   if (CC == CallingConv::Fast || CC == CallingConv::GHC || CC
=>>> CallingConv::HiPE)
>>>     return true;
>>>   return false;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Any other suggestions are always welcomed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why aren’t checking for the presence of a tail call?
>>>
>> Are you asking about if tail call optimization is enable or not?  If
not
>> then above method is inspired from X86ISelLowering::canGuaranteeTCO().
>>
>>
>> Are we turning calls into tail calls during codegen?
>> My assumption is that tail call is inferred on the IR, so you can
inspect
>> every *call site*.
>>
>> The final decision on whether to tail call or not is done during
>> instruction selection (it is part of
>> X86TargetLowering::LowerCall()/IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization() for
>> example).
>>
>>
>> Sorry i don't have access to the source code right now, can you
clarify
>> if the backend can tail call when the IR didn't mark the call as
such, or
>> if what you're referring to is "not honoring the tail call
From the IR and
>> demoting to a normal call?
>>
>>
>> The backend does only tail call if the middleend marked the call with
the
>> "tail" or "musttail" marker. But that happens for
most calls. We can only
>> really transform a franction of those into real tail calls later.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, so back to my original point: if we have to disable the CSR
>> optimization on function that “may be tail called”, it would still be
>> better IMO to do something like `llvm::any_of(callsites, isTailCall)`
>> instead of IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization().
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160629/d0ff8519/attachment.html>