llvm dev - Sep 2019 - PGO is ineffective for Rust - but why?

Can you clarify if performance difference is caused by using different
linkers at instrumentation build?  If that is the case, try dump the
sections of the resulting binary and compare __llvm_prf_** sections. Also
check the arguments passed to the linker. It should
have -u__llvm_profile_runtime   to force the profile runtime to be linked
in.

David

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:42 AM Michael Woerister via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> So one interesting observation has already come out of this: I
> confirmed that `rustc` indeed uses `-ffunction-sections` and
> `-fdata-sections` on all platforms except for macOS. When trying out
> different linkers for a small test case [1], however, I found that
> there were rather large differences in execution time:
>
> ld (no PGO) = 172 ms
> ld (PGO) = 196 ms
>
> gold (no PGO) = 182 ms
> gold (PGO) = 141 ms
>
> lld (no PGO) = 193 ms
> lld (PGO) = 171 ms
>
> So `gold` and `lld` both profit from PGO quite a bit, while `ld`
> linked programs are slower with PGO. I then noticed that branch
> weights for `ld` were missing from most branches, while the counts for
> the other linkers are correct. All of this suggests to me that
> something goes wrong when `ld` tries to link in the profiling runtime.
>
> I'll be investigating further.
>
> [1]
>
https://github.com/michaelwoerister/rust-pgo-test-programs/tree/master/branch_weights
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at
google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:18 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at
google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I just have a couple suggestions off the top of my head:
> >> - have you tried using the new pass manager
> (-fexperimental-new-pass-manager)? That has access to additional analysis
> info during inlining and is able to make more precise PGO based inline
> decisions.
> >
> >
> > (although note the above shouldn't make the difference between no
> performance and a typical PGO performance boost)
> >
> > Another thing I just thought of - are you using -ffunction-sections
and
> -fdata-sections? These will allow for PGO based function layout in the
> linker (assuming you are using lld or gold).
> >
> >> - have you tried collecting profile data with and without PGO to
see if
> you can compare where cycles are being spent? That's my usual way of
> debugging performance differences related to inlining or profile changes.
> >> - just a comment that it is odd you are getting better performance
> without the pre-inlining - which typically helps because you get better
> context-sensitive profile info. Maybe sanity check that the pre inlining is
> kicking in for both the profile gen and use passes?
> >>
> >> Teresa
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:18 AM Michael Woerister via llvm-dev
<
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> As part of my work for Mozilla's Low Level Tools team
I've
> >>> implemented PGO in the Rust compiler. The feature is
> >>> available since Rust 1.37 [1]. However, so far we have not
> >>> seen any actual performance gains from enabling PGO for
> >>> Rust code. Performance even seems to drop 1-3% with PGO
> >>> enabled. I wonder why that is and I'm hoping that someone
> >>> here might have experience debugging PGO effectiveness.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> PGO in the Rust compiler
> >>> ------------------------
> >>>
> >>> The Rust compiler uses IR-level instrumentation (the
> >>> equivalent of Clang's
`-fprofile-generate`/`-fprofile-use`).
> >>> This has worked pretty well and even enables doing PGO for
> >>> mixed Rust/C++ codebases when also using Clang.
> >>>
> >>> The Rust compiler has regression tests that make sure that:
> >>>
> >>> - instrumentation shows up in LLVM IR for the `generate`
phase,
> >>>   and that
> >>>
> >>> - profiling data is actually used during the `use` phase, i.e.
> >>>   that cold functions get marked with `cold` and hot functions
> >>>   get marked with `inline`.
> >>>
> >>> I also verified manually that `branch_weights` are being set
> >>> in IR. So, from my perspective, the PGO implementation does
> >>> what it is supposed to do.
> >>>
> >>> However, as already mentioned, in all benchmarks I've seen
so
> >>> far performance seems to stay the same at best and often even
> >>> suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++ code
> >>> using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation &
PGO brings
> >>> signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen in
> >>> benchmarks for Firefox).
> >>>
> >>> One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the
> >>> pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to consistently
> >>> improve the situation for Rust code. Doing that we sometimes
> >>> see performance wins of almost 1% over not using PGO. This
> >>> again is very different to C++ where disabling this pass
> >>> causes dramatic performance loses for the Firefox benchmarks.
> >>> And 1% performance improvement is still well below
> >>> expectations, I think.
> >>>
> >>> So my questions to you are:
> >>>
> >>> - Has anybody here observed something similar while
> >>>   wokring on or with PGO?
> >>>
> >>> - Are there certain known characteristics of LLVM IR code
> >>>   that inhibit PGO's effectiveness and that IR produced by
> >>>   `rustc` might exhibit?
> >>>
> >>> - Does anybody know of a good source that describes how to
> >>>   effectively debug a problem like this?
> >>>
> >>> - Does anybody know of a small example program in C/C++
> >>>   that is known to profit from PGO and that could be
> >>>   re-implemented in Rust for comparison?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot for reading! Any help is appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> -Michael
> >>>
> >>> [1]
>
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/08/15/Rust-1.37.0.html#profile-guided-optimization
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20190916/8604e063/attachment.html>

> Can you clarify if performance difference is caused by using different
linkers at instrumentation build?
Yes, good observation! Whether the bug occurs depends only on the
linker used for creating the instrumented binary. The linker used
during the "use" phase makes no difference.
> If that is the case, try dump the sections of the resulting binary and
compare __llvm_prf_** sections.
For the final instrumented executable, it looks like the
`__llvm_prf_data` section is 480 bytes large when using GNU ld, while
it is 528 bytes for gold and lld. The size difference (48 bytes)
incidentally is exactly the size of the `__llvm_prf_data` section in
the object file containing the code that is later missing branch
weights. It looks like the GNU linker loses the `__llvm_prf_data`
section from that object file?
> Also check the arguments passed to the linker. It should have
-u__llvm_profile_runtime to force the profile runtime to be linked in.
`-u__llvm_profile_runtime` is properly passed to the linker,
regardless of which linker it is.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:40 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at
gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can you clarify if performance difference is caused by using different
linkers at instrumentation build?  If that is the case, try dump the sections of
the resulting binary and compare __llvm_prf_** sections. Also check the
arguments passed to the linker. It should have -u__llvm_profile_runtime   to
force the profile runtime to be linked in.
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:42 AM Michael Woerister via llvm-dev <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> So one interesting observation has already come out of this: I
>> confirmed that `rustc` indeed uses `-ffunction-sections` and
>> `-fdata-sections` on all platforms except for macOS. When trying out
>> different linkers for a small test case [1], however, I found that
>> there were rather large differences in execution time:
>>
>> ld (no PGO) = 172 ms
>> ld (PGO) = 196 ms
>>
>> gold (no PGO) = 182 ms
>> gold (PGO) = 141 ms
>>
>> lld (no PGO) = 193 ms
>> lld (PGO) = 171 ms
>>
>> So `gold` and `lld` both profit from PGO quite a bit, while `ld`
>> linked programs are slower with PGO. I then noticed that branch
>> weights for `ld` were missing from most branches, while the counts for
>> the other linkers are correct. All of this suggests to me that
>> something goes wrong when `ld` tries to link in the profiling runtime.
>>
>> I'll be investigating further.
>>
>> [1]
https://github.com/michaelwoerister/rust-pgo-test-programs/tree/master/branch_weights
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at
google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:18 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at
google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I just have a couple suggestions off the top of my head:
>> >> - have you tried using the new pass manager
(-fexperimental-new-pass-manager)? That has access to additional analysis info
during inlining and is able to make more precise PGO based inline decisions.
>> >
>> >
>> > (although note the above shouldn't make the difference between
no performance and a typical PGO performance boost)
>> >
>> > Another thing I just thought of - are you using
-ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections? These will allow for PGO based function
layout in the linker (assuming you are using lld or gold).
>> >
>> >> - have you tried collecting profile data with and without PGO
to see if you can compare where cycles are being spent? That's my usual way
of debugging performance differences related to inlining or profile changes.
>> >> - just a comment that it is odd you are getting better
performance without the pre-inlining - which typically helps because you get
better context-sensitive profile info. Maybe sanity check that the pre inlining
is kicking in for both the profile gen and use passes?
>> >>
>> >> Teresa
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:18 AM Michael Woerister via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> As part of my work for Mozilla's Low Level Tools team
I've
>> >>> implemented PGO in the Rust compiler. The feature is
>> >>> available since Rust 1.37 [1]. However, so far we have not
>> >>> seen any actual performance gains from enabling PGO for
>> >>> Rust code. Performance even seems to drop 1-3% with PGO
>> >>> enabled. I wonder why that is and I'm hoping that
someone
>> >>> here might have experience debugging PGO effectiveness.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> PGO in the Rust compiler
>> >>> ------------------------
>> >>>
>> >>> The Rust compiler uses IR-level instrumentation (the
>> >>> equivalent of Clang's
`-fprofile-generate`/`-fprofile-use`).
>> >>> This has worked pretty well and even enables doing PGO for
>> >>> mixed Rust/C++ codebases when also using Clang.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Rust compiler has regression tests that make sure
that:
>> >>>
>> >>> - instrumentation shows up in LLVM IR for the `generate`
phase,
>> >>>   and that
>> >>>
>> >>> - profiling data is actually used during the `use` phase,
i.e.
>> >>>   that cold functions get marked with `cold` and hot
functions
>> >>>   get marked with `inline`.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also verified manually that `branch_weights` are being
set
>> >>> in IR. So, from my perspective, the PGO implementation
does
>> >>> what it is supposed to do.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, as already mentioned, in all benchmarks I've
seen so
>> >>> far performance seems to stay the same at best and often
even
>> >>> suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++ code
>> >>> using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation
& PGO brings
>> >>> signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen in
>> >>> benchmarks for Firefox).
>> >>>
>> >>> One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the
>> >>> pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to
consistently
>> >>> improve the situation for Rust code. Doing that we
sometimes
>> >>> see performance wins of almost 1% over not using PGO. This
>> >>> again is very different to C++ where disabling this pass
>> >>> causes dramatic performance loses for the Firefox
benchmarks.
>> >>> And 1% performance improvement is still well below
>> >>> expectations, I think.
>> >>>
>> >>> So my questions to you are:
>> >>>
>> >>> - Has anybody here observed something similar while
>> >>>   wokring on or with PGO?
>> >>>
>> >>> - Are there certain known characteristics of LLVM IR code
>> >>>   that inhibit PGO's effectiveness and that IR
produced by
>> >>>   `rustc` might exhibit?
>> >>>
>> >>> - Does anybody know of a good source that describes how to
>> >>>   effectively debug a problem like this?
>> >>>
>> >>> - Does anybody know of a small example program in C/C++
>> >>>   that is known to profit from PGO and that could be
>> >>>   re-implemented in Rust for comparison?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks a lot for reading! Any help is appreciated.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Michael
>> >>>
>> >>> [1]
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/08/15/Rust-1.37.0.html#profile-guided-optimization
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Interestingly, a C version of the same test program [1] compiled with
Clang 8 does not have any problems with GNU ld: The `__llvm_prf_data`
section is the same size for all three linkers. It must be something
specific to the Rust compiler that's going wrong here.

[1]
https://github.com/michaelwoerister/rust-pgo-test-programs/tree/master/cpp_branch_weights

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:26 PM Michael Woerister
<mwoerister at mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you clarify if performance difference is caused by using different
linkers at instrumentation build?
>
> Yes, good observation! Whether the bug occurs depends only on the
> linker used for creating the instrumented binary. The linker used
> during the "use" phase makes no difference.
>
> > If that is the case, try dump the sections of the resulting binary and
compare __llvm_prf_** sections.
>
> For the final instrumented executable, it looks like the
> `__llvm_prf_data` section is 480 bytes large when using GNU ld, while
> it is 528 bytes for gold and lld. The size difference (48 bytes)
> incidentally is exactly the size of the `__llvm_prf_data` section in
> the object file containing the code that is later missing branch
> weights. It looks like the GNU linker loses the `__llvm_prf_data`
> section from that object file?
>
> > Also check the arguments passed to the linker. It should have
-u__llvm_profile_runtime to force the profile runtime to be linked in.
>
> `-u__llvm_profile_runtime` is properly passed to the linker,
> regardless of which linker it is.
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:40 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you clarify if performance difference is caused by using different
linkers at instrumentation build?  If that is the case, try dump the sections of
the resulting binary and compare __llvm_prf_** sections. Also check the
arguments passed to the linker. It should have -u__llvm_profile_runtime   to
force the profile runtime to be linked in.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:42 AM Michael Woerister via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> So one interesting observation has already come out of this: I
> >> confirmed that `rustc` indeed uses `-ffunction-sections` and
> >> `-fdata-sections` on all platforms except for macOS. When trying
out
> >> different linkers for a small test case [1], however, I found that
> >> there were rather large differences in execution time:
> >>
> >> ld (no PGO) = 172 ms
> >> ld (PGO) = 196 ms
> >>
> >> gold (no PGO) = 182 ms
> >> gold (PGO) = 141 ms
> >>
> >> lld (no PGO) = 193 ms
> >> lld (PGO) = 171 ms
> >>
> >> So `gold` and `lld` both profit from PGO quite a bit, while `ld`
> >> linked programs are slower with PGO. I then noticed that branch
> >> weights for `ld` were missing from most branches, while the counts
for
> >> the other linkers are correct. All of this suggests to me that
> >> something goes wrong when `ld` tries to link in the profiling
runtime.
> >>
> >> I'll be investigating further.
> >>
> >> [1]
https://github.com/michaelwoerister/rust-pgo-test-programs/tree/master/branch_weights
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at
google.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:18 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson
at google.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I just have a couple suggestions off the top of my head:
> >> >> - have you tried using the new pass manager
(-fexperimental-new-pass-manager)? That has access to additional analysis info
during inlining and is able to make more precise PGO based inline decisions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (although note the above shouldn't make the difference
between no performance and a typical PGO performance boost)
> >> >
> >> > Another thing I just thought of - are you using
-ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections? These will allow for PGO based function
layout in the linker (assuming you are using lld or gold).
> >> >
> >> >> - have you tried collecting profile data with and without
PGO to see if you can compare where cycles are being spent? That's my usual
way of debugging performance differences related to inlining or profile changes.
> >> >> - just a comment that it is odd you are getting better
performance without the pre-inlining - which typically helps because you get
better context-sensitive profile info. Maybe sanity check that the pre inlining
is kicking in for both the profile gen and use passes?
> >> >>
> >> >> Teresa
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:18 AM Michael Woerister via
llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi everyone,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As part of my work for Mozilla's Low Level Tools
team I've
> >> >>> implemented PGO in the Rust compiler. The feature is
> >> >>> available since Rust 1.37 [1]. However, so far we
have not
> >> >>> seen any actual performance gains from enabling PGO
for
> >> >>> Rust code. Performance even seems to drop 1-3% with
PGO
> >> >>> enabled. I wonder why that is and I'm hoping that
someone
> >> >>> here might have experience debugging PGO
effectiveness.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> PGO in the Rust compiler
> >> >>> ------------------------
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The Rust compiler uses IR-level instrumentation (the
> >> >>> equivalent of Clang's
`-fprofile-generate`/`-fprofile-use`).
> >> >>> This has worked pretty well and even enables doing
PGO for
> >> >>> mixed Rust/C++ codebases when also using Clang.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The Rust compiler has regression tests that make sure
that:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - instrumentation shows up in LLVM IR for the
`generate` phase,
> >> >>>   and that
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - profiling data is actually used during the `use`
phase, i.e.
> >> >>>   that cold functions get marked with `cold` and hot
functions
> >> >>>   get marked with `inline`.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I also verified manually that `branch_weights` are
being set
> >> >>> in IR. So, from my perspective, the PGO
implementation does
> >> >>> what it is supposed to do.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> However, as already mentioned, in all benchmarks
I've seen so
> >> >>> far performance seems to stay the same at best and
often even
> >> >>> suffers slightly. Which is suprising because for C++
code
> >> >>> using Clang's version of IR-level instrumentation
& PGO brings
> >> >>> signifcant gains (up to 5-10% from what I've seen
in
> >> >>> benchmarks for Firefox).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One thing we noticed early on is that disabling the
> >> >>> pre-inlining pass (`-disable-preinline`) seems to
consistently
> >> >>> improve the situation for Rust code. Doing that we
sometimes
> >> >>> see performance wins of almost 1% over not using PGO.
This
> >> >>> again is very different to C++ where disabling this
pass
> >> >>> causes dramatic performance loses for the Firefox
benchmarks.
> >> >>> And 1% performance improvement is still well below
> >> >>> expectations, I think.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So my questions to you are:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Has anybody here observed something similar while
> >> >>>   wokring on or with PGO?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Are there certain known characteristics of LLVM IR
code
> >> >>>   that inhibit PGO's effectiveness and that IR
produced by
> >> >>>   `rustc` might exhibit?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Does anybody know of a good source that describes
how to
> >> >>>   effectively debug a problem like this?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Does anybody know of a small example program in
C/C++
> >> >>>   that is known to profit from PGO and that could be
> >> >>>   re-implemented in Rust for comparison?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks a lot for reading! Any help is appreciated.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Michael
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1]
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/08/15/Rust-1.37.0.html#profile-guided-optimization
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> >>>
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at
google.com |
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com
|
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev