search for: profilesummari

On 04/18/2016 04:05 PM, Easwaran Raman via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com > <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com > <mailto:eraman at google.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM,

Hi, After r256521 - which removes InlineCostAnalysis class - I think there is no strong reason for InlineCost.cpp to be part of the Analysis library. Is it fine to make it part of TransformUtils? I submitted r266477 (which has now been reverted) that made Analysis depend on ProfileData in order to obtain ProfileSummary for the module, but there is an existing dependency of ProfileData on

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>>

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but > about what the code *does*. > > Code for mutating the IR should be in Transforms, and code that analyzes > the IR without mutating it should be in Analysis. This is why, for example, > InstructionSimplify is in

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but >> about what

Hello, My team and I are looking to do some enhancements in the partial inliner in opt. Would appreciate any feedback that folks might have. # Partial Inlining in LLVM opt ## Summary ### Background Currently, the partial inliner searches the first few blocks of the callee and looks for a branch to the return block (ie. early return). If found, it attempts to outline the rest of the

Hi Jessica, Thanks for the feedback. I believe the existing partial inliner pass does use some common utilities like the code extractor to do outlining. Is that what you're referring to? I don't recall seeing any other passes that has outlining other than the machine outliner, but I may have missed something. I briefly looked at River's RFC and it seems he's mainly utilizing

Hi David, So I've began doing some implementation on the outlining portion of the code. Currently, I got the partial inliner to outline cold regions (single entry, single exit) of the code, based solely on the existence of ProfileSummaryInfo (ie. profiling data). However, I have some concerns on how this will co-exist with the existing code that peels early returns. The control flow looks

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:14 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hey Graham, > I worked on pretty much this exact thing last year. I did something > similar to what you described, I traversed the CFG and built potentially > profitable regions from any given valid start node. At that point there > were several road blocks that prevented it

Hi David, The only reason I can see to use the 'pattern matching' part as a fall-back is in case we cannot inline the (what I'm assuming would be) a much bigger hot-path-only cloned function for whatever reason. What I'm assuming here is that after cold-region outlining, we may still have a large portion of the original function body to attempt to inline, whereas the pattern

I second the fact that a way to outline specific function regions independently of the partial inliner sound very useful. I am not sure however if we would want a mode within the partialInliner or something completely independent. As a general question, does anybody has a clear idea of what are the constraints on the region CodeExtractor is currently able to handle ? Going through the code, it

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> In the current case at stake: the issue is that we can't make the >>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" > <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:31:05 PM

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

The profile summary is saved in the global metadata ASAIK. If we want to calculate if something is hot/cold while choosing functions for importing, we would either need to read whole Module (which we clearly don't want to do) or duplicate this information in the summary, so we could get it without reading Module. 2016-09-02 15:49 GMT-07:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: >