[llvm-dev] LLD status update and performance chart

Sean Silva via llvm-dev
Tue, 13 Dec 2016 07:42:02 -0000

LLD/ELF is is only about a year and a half old, and it's amazing how far
we've come. I have LLD/ELF to thank for the fondest memories of my time at
PlayStation; I can't count how many times Michael and I were there past
midnight getting things working, and after Davide joined us, seeing him
leave every night limited only by how late the last Caltrain would run.
It's amazing to be a part of this.

One of the most exciting things in the last months has been this new phase
LLD has entered where new developers are joining, fixing the bugs they find
and implementing the features they need as they port LLD to new platforms
-- that is the ultimate validation that we're doing something right.

-- Sean Silva

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Now that 2016 is almost over, I wanted to look back and summarize the
> progress we've made to LLD this year, as I guess most people who are
not
> looking closely at LLD don't know very well about the current status. I
> think I can say that this year was a fantastic year for LLD. Now I'm
pretty
> sure that that is going to be a serious (and better, in my opinion)
> alternative to the existing GNU linkers thanks to all the improvements
> we've made this year.
>
> LLD is now able to link most x86-64 userland programs. The FreeBSD project
> and we are trying to make LLD the system default linker of the operating
> system, and except a few tricky programs such as the kernel or a boot
> loader, the linker works mostly fine. We are still working on implementing
> long-tail features/bugs, but I'd say that's just a matter of time.
LLD
> supports x86, x86-64, x32, AArch64, AMDGPU, ARM, PPC64 and MIPS32/64,
> though completeness varies.
>
> Looks like there are already a few systems that are using LLD as system
> linkers, such as CloudABI or Fuchsia. Chromium and Clang/LLVM itself has
> build options to use LLD to build them.
>
> It is hard to argue about the complexity of a program quantitatively, and
> of course I'm biased, but I believe we succeeded to maintain LLD code
base
> clean, easy to read, and easy to add new features. It is just 20k lines of
> modern C++ code which is much smaller than GNU linkers.
>
> Even though LLD was fast from day one, LLD got faster this year, despite
> it got a lot of new features. Below is a chart of Clang link time for every
> commit made to the LLD repository this year. At the beginning of this year,
> LLD took about 16 seconds to produce a 1.5 GB clang (debug build)
> executable. Now, it takes about 14.5 seconds on single core and 8.5 seconds
> on 20 cores (*1). ld.gold takes about 25 seconds and 20 seconds,
> respectively, so we've widen the gap. You can see the benchmark results
> here (*2). If you have a problem of too long link time, I'd recommend
to
> try LLD.
>
> Last but not least, a lot of people joined to the LLD development this
> year to make LLD better. We are growing as a community, and I'm very
happy
> about that!
>
> Thanks,
> Rui
>
> (*1) My machine has Ivy Bridge Xeon 2.8 GHz 20 physical cores (40
> hyper-threading cores). To measure a single-thread performance, I pinned a
> process to (physical and hyper-threading) core 0. To measure a multi-thread
> performance, I pinned to CPU socket 2, so that a process gets 10 physical
> cores (20 hyperthreading cores).
>
> (*2) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VvOqiU5JvqlxU7aof8gsbh-
> yweeNchMgtkamyXrwzrA/edit?usp=sharing. Changes with more than 1% rise or
> drop compared to the average of previous 5 commits are colored in green or
> red, respectively.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161212/ed8f93d4/attachment.html>