llvm dev - Sep 2018 - RFC Storing BB order in llvm::Instruction for faster local dominance

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
wrote:
> 
> To echo what Hal said, yes, it's a major change, but I think the
improved complexity guarantees, simplicity, and elimination of certain classes
of bugs is worth it.
> 
> I think we have consensus that we should go forward with this. Would anyone
mind formally stamping it in phab? So far everyone understandably has said
"makes sense to me, but I don't consider myself to have authority to
stamp this.”
Hi Reid,

I have significant concerns with this patch.  I’d really appreciate it if you
could address the discussion feedback here before just plowing forward with such
an invasive change to the core IR.

Have you done any memory use analysis or compile time impact analysis of this
change?  Have you consider the algorithm I mentioned?  I am not motivated by
your rationale above, and I think it will be a huge step forward and effectively
define away the problem.

-Chris

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 9:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
wrote:
>> I think we have consensus that we should go forward with this. Would
anyone mind formally stamping it in phab? So far everyone understandably has
said "makes sense to me, but I don't consider myself to have authority
to stamp this.”
> 
> Hi Reid,
> 
> I have significant concerns with this patch.  I’d really appreciate it if
you could address the discussion feedback here before just plowing forward with
such an invasive change to the core IR.
> 
> Have you done any memory use analysis or compile time impact analysis of
this change?  Have you consider the algorithm I mentioned?  I am not motivated
by your rationale above, and I think it will be a huge step forward and
effectively define away the problem.
To be clear, I’m a superfan of your work and agree that “automatic invalidation
and simplification” are good goals.  I’d just love to see more analysis of the
situation before burning space on this extra field.

For example, it would be very interesting to see what the typical distribution
of local dominance queries actually are.  You could take your patch here and
have it instrument the “Instruction::comesBefore” method to log the distance
between the instruction numbers to a file and generate a histogram of them.   My
bet is that the vast vast vast majority of them will be small (and I’d guess a
HUGE number of them have a distance of +1/-1, whose query can be resolved
without computing a numbering in the first place).

Can you do that experiment and report back, e.g. on the SemaChecking.cpp
testcase?

-Chris

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:07 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org>
wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2018, at 9:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
nondot.org> wrote:
> >> I think we have consensus that we should go forward with this.
Would
> anyone mind formally stamping it in phab? So far everyone understandably
> has said "makes sense to me, but I don't consider myself to have
authority
> to stamp this.”
> >
> > Hi Reid,
> >
> > I have significant concerns with this patch.  I’d really appreciate it
> if you could address the discussion feedback here before just plowing
> forward with such an invasive change to the core IR.
>
Sorry for that, I'm at a conference and I'm trying to push this along in
the background without doing any real work on it. I've convinced myself
it's the right change, and that's enough to make me impatient.

> > Have you done any memory use analysis or compile time impact analysis
of
> this change?  Have you consider the algorithm I mentioned?  I am not
> motivated by your rationale above, and I think it will be a huge step
> forward and effectively define away the problem.
>
> To be clear, I’m a superfan of your work and agree that “automatic
> invalidation and simplification” are good goals.  I’d just love to see more
> analysis of the situation before burning space on this extra field.
>
> For example, it would be very interesting to see what the typical
> distribution of local dominance queries actually are.  You could take your
> patch here and have it instrument the “Instruction::comesBefore” method to
> log the distance between the instruction numbers to a file and generate a
> histogram of them.   My bet is that the vast vast vast majority of them
> will be small (and I’d guess a HUGE number of them have a distance of
> +1/-1, whose query can be resolved without computing a numbering in the
> first place).
>
> Can you do that experiment and report back, e.g. on the SemaChecking.cpp
> testcase?
>
Fair enough. I made a patch to do that, and uploaded it here:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52510
I put it into a spreadsheet and made a histogram here: https://goo.gl/AMLBt7
I grouped the typical query distances into natural log buckets, and the
table is small enough to paste here:

distance freq
1-2 3707
2-7 5622
7-20 25764
20-54 1726
54-148 2052
148-403 4462
403-1096 8423
1096-2980 20487
2980-8103 34930
8103-22026 63759
22026-59874 41729

I think the table shows that local dominance queries are, at least for
SemaChecking.cpp, not clustered around small distances. The average query
is somewhere out around 11,000 instructions apart.

One thing to note is that the code in question isn't using
DominatorTree::dominates. That was identified as a hotspot, so it's using
OrderedBasicBlock, but it's not caching it at a high enough level to avoid
quadratic behavior. Raising it up isn't easy, hence this patch.

Sanjoy also wanted more data and suggested that I re-run the max RSS during
full LTO of llc experiment that I did when I removed the vptr from Value. I
went ahead and did that on the review, but it's not on the dev list, so it
may not have enough visibility. I found that the max RSS before the patch
was 4816464 kb, and after, 4867836 kb. That's an increase of 1.06%, or in
absolute terms, ~50MB of memory spent on instruction positions during full
LTO of llc.

I think Sanjoy's bit-stealing suggestion is a worthwhile alternative to
growing Instruction, but I really think we should analyze it from the
position of, is the complexity of bit-stealing from Parent worth it to
shrink Instruction?

Anyway, hopefully this looks compelling. I'll put some of it in the patch
description before landing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180925/d660c09b/attachment.html>