[llvm-dev] Saving Compile Time in InstCombine

Sean Silva via llvm-dev
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 21:58:44 -0000

An ALIVE-like matching automaton could algorithmically mitigate the costs
of large numbers of matchers.

I don't know if we're at the point where we need to take that leap, but
we
should probably answer dannyb's comments before doing that. Once we know
what we want we can then look for solutions (possibly using new/different
algorithms, such as what we are doing for NewGVN)

Honestly I think that finding out what we want is going to be as hard or
harder to solving it. As Gerolf mentions, there's still quite a bit of
analysis to be done to better understand InstCombine's role in the our
current pipeline.

-- Sean Silva

On Mar 22, 2017 7:29 PM, "Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

In my testing results are not that impressive, but that's because I'm
now
focusing on Os. For me even complete disabling of all KnownBits-related
patterns in InstCombine places the results very close to the noise level.
In my original patch I also had some extra patterns moved under
ExpensiveCombines - and that seems to make a difference too (without this
part, or without the KnownBits part I get results below 1%, which are not
reported as regressions/improvements).

Personally I think caching results of KnownBits is a good idea, and should
probably help O3 compile time (and obviously the cases from bug reports,
like PR32037).

But I also think that the way we're currently doing
combining/canonicalization is unnecessary complicated. Do we really need to
try canonicalizing all of these patterns? What happens if we don't? Has
anyone tried replace some of the InstCombine invocations with InstSimplify?
Do we have a justification for the invocations we currently have? I realize
that InstCombine doesn't usually do any harm, if we don't care about
compile time, but that's only the case for O3 (to some extent), not for
other optimization levels. I think it's equally important to 1) make our
implementations faster, and 2) not perform unnecessary work when possible.
Adding caching for known bits makes InstCombine faster, but we can get even
more if we don't invoke it when it's not needed.

Of course, we don't want to blindly disable the patterns that just happen
to be not used in some (admittedly small) test runs that I made. But what
I'd like to do is to make a deliberate decision on what's critical and
what's optional here, what can be disabled to save some compile time.
I'd
be happy to carry out any kinds of experiments do we need to run to figure
this out, and take part in implementing any missing parts or necessary
refactoring. My current plan is to experiment with replacing some
InstCombine invocations with InstSimplify and see what regresses after it,
but if you know that's already been done by someone, or you have better
ideas - I'd be happy to hear them!

Thanks,
Michael

On Mar 22, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:


On 03/22/2017 01:34 PM, Sanjay Patel wrote:

> To (hopefully) make it easier to answer this question, I've posted my
(work-in-progress) patch which adds a known-bits cache to
InstCombine.
> I rebased it yesterday, so it  should be fairly easy to apply:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31239 - Seeing what this does to the performance
of the
> benchmarks mentioned in this thread (among others) would certainly be
interesting.

Thanks! I only have the one rough data point based on PR32037, but caching
does good things for compile-time on that example.

Trunk r298514 compiled release on macOS running on Haswell 4GHz:
$ time ./opt -O2  row_common.bc -S -o /dev/null

user    0m0.302s
user    0m0.300s
user    0m0.296s
user    0m0.299s
user    0m0.296s

With your patch applied:

user    0m0.264s
user    0m0.269s
user    0m0.269s
user    0m0.268s
user    0m0.268s

So the time for all of -O2 has dropped to 89.6% of the baseline
(improvement of 11.5%).
A profile shows time spent in InstCombine->computeKnownBits dropped from 58
ms to 15 ms (lines up with the overall time drop), so we're about 4x faster
in ValueTracking with the caching.


Yay :-) -- Unfortunately, I won't have time to work on this in the near
future, but if someone would like to pick this up and fix the nsw/nuw
invalidation issue (which is exposed in a few of the regression-tests which
fail with the patch applied), that would be great.

 -Hal


On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On 03/20/2017 11:51 PM, Gerolf Hoflehner wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 6:12 PM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this change as-is. The set of
transforms
> that were added behind ExpensiveChecks seems awfully strange and many would
> not lead the reader to believe that they are expensive at all
> (the SimplifyDemandedInstructionBits and foldICmpUsingKnownBits calls
> being the obvious expensive routines).
>
> The purpose of many of InstCombine's xforms is to canonicalize the IR
to
> make life easier for downstream passes and analyses.
>
>
> As we get further along with compile-time improvements one question we
> need to ask ourselves more frequently is about the effectiveness of
> optimizations/passes. For example -  in this case - how can we make an
> educated assessment that running the combiner N times is a good
> cost/benefit investment of compute resources? The questions below are meant
> to figure out what technologies/instrumentations/etc could help towards a
> more data-driven decision process when it comes to the effectiveness of
> optimizations. Instcombiner might just be an inspirational use case to see
> what is possible in that direction.
>
> The combiner is invoked in full multiple times. But is it really necessary
> to run all of it for that purpose? After instcombine is run once is there a
> mapping from transformation -> combines? I suspect most transformations
> could invoke a subset of combines to re-canonicalize. Or, if there was a
> (cheap) verifier for canonical IR, it could invoke a specific
> canonicalization routine. Instrumenting the instcombiner and checking which
> patterns actually kick in (for different invocations)  might give insight
> into how the combiner could be structured and so that only a subset of
> pattern need to be checked.
>
>
> InstCombine internally relies on knowing what transforms it may or may not
> perform. This is important: canonicalizations may duel endlessly if we get
> this wrong; the order of the combines is also important for exactly the
> same reason (SelectionDAG deals with this problem in a different way with
> its pattern complexity field).
>
>
> Can you elaborate on this “duel endlessly” with specific examples? This is
> out of curiosity. There must be verifiers that check that this cannot
> happen. Or an implementation strategy that guarantees that. Global isel
> will run into the same/similar question when it gets far enough to replace
> SD.
>
>
> Another concern with moving seemingly arbitrary combines under
> ExpensiveCombines is that it will make it that much harder to understand
> what is and is not canonical at a given point during the execution of the
> optimizer.
>
>
>
> I'd be much more interested in a patch which caches the result of
> frequently called ValueTracking functionality like ComputeKnownBits,
> ComputeSignBit, etc. which often doesn't change but is not
intelligently
> reused. I imagine that the performance win might be quite comparable.
>
>
> Can you back this up with measurements? Caching schemes are tricky. Is
> there a way to evaluate when the results of ComputeKnownBits etc is
> actually effective meaining the result is used and gives faster
> instructions? E.g. it might well be that only the first instance of
> inst_combine benefits from computing the bits.
>
>
> To (hopefully) make it easier to answer this question, I've posted my
> (work-in-progress) patch which adds a known-bits cache to InstCombine. I
> rebased it yesterday, so it should be fairly easy to apply:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D31239 - Seeing what this does to the
> performance of the benchmarks mentioned in this thread (among others) would
> certainly be interesting.
>
>  -Hal
>
>
>
>
> Such a patch would have the benefit of keeping the set of available
> transforms constant throughout the pipeline while bringing execution time
> down; I wouldn't be at all surprised if caching the ValueTracking
functions
> resulted in a bigger time savings.
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03/17/2017 04:30 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of the most time-consuming passes in LLVM middle-end is InstCombine
>> (see e.g. [1]). It is a very powerful pass capable of doing all the
crazy
>> stuff, and new patterns are being constantly introduced there. The
problem
>> is that we often use it just as a clean-up pass: it's scheduled 6
times in
>> the current pass pipeline, and each time it's invoked it checks all
known
>> patterns. It sounds ok for O3, where we try to squeeze as much
performance
>> as possible, but it is too excessive for other opt-levels. InstCombine
has
>> an ExpensiveCombines parameter to address that - but I think it's
underused
>> at the moment.
>>
>>
>> Yes, the “ExpensiveCombines” has been added recently (4.0? 3.9?) but I
>> believe has always been intended to be extended the way you’re doing
it. So
>> I support this effort :)
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Also, did your profiling reveal why the other combines are expensive?
>> Among other things, I'm curious if the expensive ones tend to spend
a lot
>> of time in ValueTracking (getting known bits and similar)?
>>
>>  -Hal
>>
>>
>>
>> CC: David for the general direction on InstCombine though.
>>
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trying to find out, which patterns are important, and which are rare, I
>> profiled clang using CTMark and got the following coverage report:
>> <InstCombine_covreport.html>
>> (beware, the file is ~6MB).
>>
>> Guided by this profile I moved some patterns under the "if
>> (ExpensiveCombines)" check, which expectedly happened to be
neutral for
>> runtime performance, but improved compile-time. The testing results are
>> below (measured for Os).
>>
>> Performance Improvements - Compile Time Δ  Previous Current σ
>> CTMark/sqlite3/sqlite3
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.15=2>
-1.55%
>> 6.8155 6.7102 0.0081
>> CTMark/mafft/pairlocalalign
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.1=2>
-1.05% 8.0407
>> 7.9559 0.0193
>> CTMark/ClamAV/clamscan
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.7=2>
-1.02%
>> 11.3893 11.2734 0.0081
>> CTMark/lencod/lencod
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.10=2>
-1.01%
>> 12.8763 12.7461 0.0244
>> CTMark/SPASS/SPASS
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.5=2>
-1.01%
>> 12.5048 12.3791 0.0340
>>
>> Performance Improvements - Compile Time Δ  Previous Current σ
>> External/SPEC/CINT2006/403.gcc/403.gcc
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.14=2>
-1.64%
>> 54.0801 53.1930 -
>> External/SPEC/CINT2006/400.perlbench/400.perlbench
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.7=2>
-1.25%
>> 19.1481 18.9091 -
>> External/SPEC/CINT2006/445.gobmk/445.gobmk
>> <http://michaelsmacmini.local/perf/v4/nts/2/graph?test.15=2>
-1.01%
>> 15.2819 15.1274 -
>>
>>
>> Do such changes make sense? The patch doesn't change O3, but it
does
>> change Os and potentially can change performance there (though I
didn't see
>> any changes in my tests).
>>
>> The patch is attached for the reference, if we decide to go for it,
I'll
>> upload it to phab:
>>
>> <0001-InstCombine-Move-some-infrequent-patterns-under-if-E.patch>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> [1]: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-December/108279.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at
lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing
> list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/
> mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

--
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

_______________________________________________
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/20170324/3c8a7b5f/attachment-0001.html>