llvm dev - May 2017 - [GlobalISel][AArch64] Toward flipping the switch for O0: Please give it a try!

Cool test :)
It seems to work fine now, I don't see any new failures. IIUC, Kristof is
also giving it another run.

Cheers,
Diana

On 30 May 2017 at 22:57, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Diana,
>
> I’ve actually gone ahead and pushed the fix as I was able to produce a
> small reproducer.
>
> This is r304244
>
> Let me know if you encounter any other problem.
>
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
>
> On May 30, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Diana.
>
> That is indeed the assumption in the code and this is obviously wrong.
>
> Could you try the attached patch?
>
> (I haven’t even tried to compile it though)
>
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
> <localizer_tentative_fix.diff>
>
> On May 30, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org>
wrote:
>
> Hi Quentin,
>
> I've attached a reproducer for the problem.
>
> I've described what I think the problem is in the file, but the short
> version is that the localizer shouldn't assume that the iteration
> order for the uses corresponds to the logical order of instructions in
> a basic block (we're now localizing before the first use that we find,
> but that may be later in the basic block, so we'd end up with uses
> before the def).
>
> I'm not sure it's possible to test this without running a couple of
> passes. You might be able to trigger it only with reg bank select +
> localize, but I haven't tried. Using only the localizer would mean
> that the iteration order for the uses would be the order in which
> they're read in, so you wouldn't have this problem.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Diana
>
>
> On 29 May 2017 at 10:06, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org>
wrote:
>
> Thanks Quentin, it's in progress now, I'll let you know how it
goes.
>
> Cheers,
> Diana
>
> On 27 May 2017 at 03:36, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kristof,
>
> I’ve pushed the localizer in r304051 and added it in the AArch64 O0
> pipeline
> in r304052.
>
> I let Diana investigate the seg fault she was seeing.
>
> @Diana, let me know if you need help.
>
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kristof,
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 2:09 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 24 May 2017, at 22:01, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kristof,
>
> Thanks for going back so fast!
>
> On May 24, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at
arm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 May 2017, at 19:31, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Kristof,
>
> Thanks for the measurements.
>
> On May 24, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com>
wrote:
>
>
> - Comparing against -O0 without globalisel but with the above regalloc
> options: 5.6% performance drop, 1% code size drop.
>
> In summary, the measurements indicate some good improvements.
> I also haven't measure the impact on compile time.
>
>
> Do you have a mean to make this measurement?
> Ahmed did a bunch of compile time measurements on our side and I wanted to
> see if I need to put him on the hook again :).
>
>
> I did a quick setup with CTMark (part of the test-suite). I ran each of
> * '-O0 -g',
> * '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0',
and
> * '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 -mllvm
> -optimize-regalloc -mllvm -regalloc=greedy'
> 5 times, cross-compiling from X86 to AArch64, and took the median measured
> compile times.
> In summary, I see GlobalISel having a compile time that's 3.5% higher
than
> the current -O0 default.
> With enabling the greedy register allocator, this increases to 28%.
> 28% is probably too high?
>
>
> I think it is yes.
> I have attached a quick hack to the greedy allocator to feature a fast
> mode.
> Could you give it a try?
>
> To enable the fast mode, please use (-mllvm) -regalloc-greedy-fast=true
> (default is false).
>
>
> I'm afraid it doesn't seem to save much compile time. On geomean, I
see
> about 26% compile time increase against the current -O0 default (compared
> to
> 28% increase for regalloc greedy without your patch).
>
>
> Interesting, I guess a lot of time is spent in the coalescer. Could you
> give
> a try with -join-liveintervals=false?
>
>
> With adding -join-liveintervals=false, I see the compile time increase
> going
> up to 28% again.
>
>
> Heh, I am mildly surprised we hand much more live-ranges to the allocator
> when we do that.
>
>
>
> Do you know where the time is spent (-time-passes)?
>
>
> I'm afraid I won't have time to have a closer look in the next
couple of
> days - I don't know where the time is spent at the moment.
>
>
> Fair enough, will investigate later.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, fixing all of those, although this is I think the right approach,
> will take time, so we can go with the localizer.
>
>
> Right, I don't understand the register allocator well enough to know if
> that
> compile time overhead can be fixed, while still getting the necessary
> codegen benefits the greedy allocator gives.
> Is there any specific help you're looking for with getting the
localizer
> work well enough for production use?
>
>
> I’ll clean-up the WIP patch for the localizer, then you guys can fix the
> bug
> that you found.
>
> I’ll do that tomorrow.
>
> Cheers,
> -Quentin
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kristof
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> <localizer-mo-order.mir>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170531/4046eb2d/attachment-0001.html>

On 31 May 2017, at 15:33, Diana Picus via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Cool test :)
It seems to work fine now, I don't see any new failures. IIUC, Kristof is
also giving it another run.

Cheers,
Diana

Latest comparisons on my side, after picking up r304244, i.e. the correct
Localizer pass.
* CTMark compile time, comparing "-O0 -g" vs '-O0 -g -mllvm
-global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0': about 6% increase with
globalisel. This was about 3.5% before the Localizer pass landed.
* My usual performance benchmarking run: 8.5% slow-down. This was about 9.5%
before the Localizer pass landed, so a slight improvement.
* Code size: 3.14% larger. This was about 2.8% before the Localizer pass landed,
so a slight regression.
* Debug info quality: I didn't do another recheck, trusting that the
Localizer pass wouldn't change debug info quality.
* Stack size usage: I don't know of a good way to measure this, but
Diana's experiments show that at least for bootstrapping it went from
"problematically bad" to "OK".

Thanks,

Kristof



On 30 May 2017 at 22:57, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
Hi Diana,

I’ve actually gone ahead and pushed the fix as I was able to produce a small
reproducer.

This is r304244

Let me know if you encounter any other problem.

Cheers,
-Quentin
On May 30, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Thanks Diana.

That is indeed the assumption in the code and this is obviously wrong.

Could you try the attached patch?

(I haven’t even tried to compile it though)

Cheers,
-Quentin
<localizer_tentative_fix.diff>
On May 30, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

I've attached a reproducer for the problem.

I've described what I think the problem is in the file, but the short
version is that the localizer shouldn't assume that the iteration
order for the uses corresponds to the logical order of instructions in
a basic block (we're now localizing before the first use that we find,
but that may be later in the basic block, so we'd end up with uses
before the def).

I'm not sure it's possible to test this without running a couple of
passes. You might be able to trigger it only with reg bank select +
localize, but I haven't tried. Using only the localizer would mean
that the iteration order for the uses would be the order in which
they're read in, so you wouldn't have this problem.

Hope that helps,
Diana


On 29 May 2017 at 10:06, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
Thanks Quentin, it's in progress now, I'll let you know how it goes.

Cheers,
Diana

On 27 May 2017 at 03:36, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
Hi Kristof,

I’ve pushed the localizer in r304051 and added it in the AArch64 O0 pipeline
in r304052.

I let Diana investigate the seg fault she was seeing.

@Diana, let me know if you need help.

Cheers,
-Quentin

On May 25, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:

Hi Kristof,

On May 25, 2017, at 2:09 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at
arm.com<mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:


On 24 May 2017, at 22:01, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Kristof,

Thanks for going back so fast!

On May 24, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at
arm.com<mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:


On 24 May 2017, at 19:31, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Kristof,

Thanks for the measurements.

On May 24, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at
arm.com<mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:


- Comparing against -O0 without globalisel but with the above regalloc
options: 5.6% performance drop, 1% code size drop.

In summary, the measurements indicate some good improvements.
I also haven't measure the impact on compile time.


Do you have a mean to make this measurement?
Ahmed did a bunch of compile time measurements on our side and I wanted to
see if I need to put him on the hook again :).


I did a quick setup with CTMark (part of the test-suite). I ran each of
* '-O0 -g',
* '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0', and
* '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0 -mllvm
-optimize-regalloc -mllvm -regalloc=greedy'
5 times, cross-compiling from X86 to AArch64, and took the median measured
compile times.
In summary, I see GlobalISel having a compile time that's 3.5% higher than
the current -O0 default.
With enabling the greedy register allocator, this increases to 28%.
28% is probably too high?


I think it is yes.
I have attached a quick hack to the greedy allocator to feature a fast mode.
Could you give it a try?

To enable the fast mode, please use (-mllvm) -regalloc-greedy-fast=true
(default is false).


I'm afraid it doesn't seem to save much compile time. On geomean, I see
about 26% compile time increase against the current -O0 default (compared to
28% increase for regalloc greedy without your patch).


Interesting, I guess a lot of time is spent in the coalescer. Could you give
a try with -join-liveintervals=false?


With adding -join-liveintervals=false, I see the compile time increase going
up to 28% again.


Heh, I am mildly surprised we hand much more live-ranges to the allocator
when we do that.



Do you know where the time is spent (-time-passes)?


I'm afraid I won't have time to have a closer look in the next couple of
days - I don't know where the time is spent at the moment.


Fair enough, will investigate later.



Anyhow, fixing all of those, although this is I think the right approach,
will take time, so we can go with the localizer.


Right, I don't understand the register allocator well enough to know if that
compile time overhead can be fixed, while still getting the necessary
codegen benefits the greedy allocator gives.
Is there any specific help you're looking for with getting the localizer
work well enough for production use?


I’ll clean-up the WIP patch for the localizer, then you guys can fix the bug
that you found.

I’ll do that tomorrow.

Cheers,
-Quentin


Thanks,

Kristof


_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


<localizer-mo-order.mir>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20170531/5b4c192f/attachment.html>

Hi Kristof,

Thanks for the updated numbers.
> On May 31, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com>
wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 31 May 2017, at 15:33, Diana Picus via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Cool test :)
>> It seems to work fine now, I don't see any new failures. IIUC,
Kristof is also giving it another run.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Diana
> 
> Latest comparisons on my side, after picking up r304244, i.e. the correct
Localizer pass.
> * CTMark compile time, comparing "-O0 -g" vs '-O0 -g -mllvm
-global-isel=true -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0': about 6% increase with
globalisel. This was about 3.5% before the Localizer pass landed.
That one is surprising too. I wouldn’t have expected this pass to show up in the
compile time profile. At least not to this extend.
What is the biggest offender?
> * My usual performance benchmarking run: 8.5% slow-down. This was about
9.5% before the Localizer pass landed, so a slight improvement.
> * Code size: 3.14% larger. This was about 2.8% before the Localizer pass
landed, so a slight regression.
That one is surprising. Do you have an idea of what is happening?
Alternatively if you can point me to the biggest offender, I can have a look.

The only thing I can think of is that we duplicate constants that are expensive
to materialize. If that’s the case, we were discussing with Ahmed an alternative
to the localizer pass that would operate during InstructionSelect so may be
worth pursuing.
> * Debug info quality: I didn't do another recheck, trusting that the
Localizer pass wouldn't change debug info quality.
> * Stack size usage: I don't know of a good way to measure this, but
Diana's experiments show that at least for bootstrapping it went from
"problematically bad" to "OK".
> 
> Thanks,
Thanks,
-Quentin
> 
> Kristof
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 30 May 2017 at 22:57, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Diana,
>> 
>> I’ve actually gone ahead and pushed the fix as I was able to produce a
small reproducer.
>> 
>> This is r304244
>> 
>> Let me know if you encounter any other problem.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -Quentin
>>> On May 30, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Diana.
>>> 
>>> That is indeed the assumption in the code and this is obviously
wrong.
>>> 
>>> Could you try the attached patch?
>>> 
>>> (I haven’t even tried to compile it though)
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Quentin
>>> <localizer_tentative_fix.diff>
>>>> On May 30, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org <mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Quentin,
>>>> 
>>>> I've attached a reproducer for the problem.
>>>> 
>>>> I've described what I think the problem is in the file, but
the short
>>>> version is that the localizer shouldn't assume that the
iteration
>>>> order for the uses corresponds to the logical order of
instructions in
>>>> a basic block (we're now localizing before the first use
that we find,
>>>> but that may be later in the basic block, so we'd end up
with uses
>>>> before the def).
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not sure it's possible to test this without running
a couple of
>>>> passes. You might be able to trigger it only with reg bank
select +
>>>> localize, but I haven't tried. Using only the localizer
would mean
>>>> that the iteration order for the uses would be the order in
which
>>>> they're read in, so you wouldn't have this problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Hope that helps,
>>>> Diana
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 29 May 2017 at 10:06, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org <mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Quentin, it's in progress now, I'll let you
know how it goes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Diana
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 27 May 2017 at 03:36, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Kristof,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ve pushed the localizer in r304051 and added it in
the AArch64 O0 pipeline
>>>>>> in r304052.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I let Diana investigate the seg fault she was seeing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> @Diana, let me know if you need help.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Quentin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 25, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Quentin Colombet via
llvm-dev
>>>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Kristof,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 25, 2017, at 2:09 AM, Kristof Beyls
<kristof.beyls at arm.com <mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 24 May 2017, at 22:01, Quentin Colombet
<qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Kristof,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for going back so fast!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 24, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Kristof Beyls
<kristof.beyls at arm.com <mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 24 May 2017, at 19:31, Quentin Colombet
<qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Kristof,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for the measurements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 24, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Kristof Beyls
<kristof.beyls at arm.com <mailto:kristof.beyls at arm.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Comparing against -O0 without globalisel but with the
above regalloc
>>>>>> options: 5.6% performance drop, 1% code size drop.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In summary, the measurements indicate some good
improvements.
>>>>>> I also haven't measure the impact on compile time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you have a mean to make this measurement?
>>>>>> Ahmed did a bunch of compile time measurements on our
side and I wanted to
>>>>>> see if I need to put him on the hook again :).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I did a quick setup with CTMark (part of the
test-suite). I ran each of
>>>>>> * '-O0 -g',
>>>>>> * '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm
-global-isel-abort=0', and
>>>>>> * '-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel=true -mllvm
-global-isel-abort=0 -mllvm
>>>>>> -optimize-regalloc -mllvm -regalloc=greedy'
>>>>>> 5 times, cross-compiling from X86 to AArch64, and took
the median measured
>>>>>> compile times.
>>>>>> In summary, I see GlobalISel having a compile time
that's 3.5% higher than
>>>>>> the current -O0 default.
>>>>>> With enabling the greedy register allocator, this
increases to 28%.
>>>>>> 28% is probably too high?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it is yes.
>>>>>> I have attached a quick hack to the greedy allocator to
feature a fast mode.
>>>>>> Could you give it a try?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To enable the fast mode, please use (-mllvm)
-regalloc-greedy-fast=true
>>>>>> (default is false).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm afraid it doesn't seem to save much compile
time. On geomean, I see
>>>>>> about 26% compile time increase against the current -O0
default (compared to
>>>>>> 28% increase for regalloc greedy without your patch).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Interesting, I guess a lot of time is spent in the
coalescer. Could you give
>>>>>> a try with -join-liveintervals=false?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With adding -join-liveintervals=false, I see the
compile time increase going
>>>>>> up to 28% again.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Heh, I am mildly surprised we hand much more
live-ranges to the allocator
>>>>>> when we do that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do you know where the time is spent (-time-passes)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm afraid I won't have time to have a closer
look in the next couple of
>>>>>> days - I don't know where the time is spent at the
moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Fair enough, will investigate later.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyhow, fixing all of those, although this is I think
the right approach,
>>>>>> will take time, so we can go with the localizer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Right, I don't understand the register allocator
well enough to know if that
>>>>>> compile time overhead can be fixed, while still getting
the necessary
>>>>>> codegen benefits the greedy allocator gives.
>>>>>> Is there any specific help you're looking for with
getting the localizer
>>>>>> work well enough for production use?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll clean-up the WIP patch for the localizer, then you
guys can fix the bug
>>>>>> that you found.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll do that tomorrow.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Quentin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kristof
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> <localizer-mo-order.mir>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<http://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>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<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/20170531/9f45d7d9/attachment.html>