search for: pszeniczni

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:41 PM Maksim Panchenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > *Pessimization/overhead for stack unwinding used by system-wide profilers > and > for exception handling* > > Larger CFI programs put an extra burden on unwinding at runtime as more CFI > (and thus native) instructions have to be executed. This will cause more > overhead

I'm a bit confused by this subthread -- doesn't BOLT have the exact same CFI bloat issue? From my cursory reading of the propellor doc, the CFI duplication is _necessary_ to represent discontiguous functions, not anything particular to the way Propellor happens to generate those discontiguous functions. And emitting discontiguous functions is a fundamental goal of this, right? On Wed,

We would also like to clarify on the misconceptions around CFI Instructions: There are two things that need to be clarified here: 1) Extra CFI FDE entries for basic blocks does not mean more dynamic instructions are executed. In fact, they do not increase at all. Krys talked about this earlier. 2) We do deduplication of common static CFI instructions in the FDE and move it to the CIE . Hence,

Hi all, I would like to propose a new way clang would decorate vtable loads in order to handle devirtualization better. I've added *llvm-dev* also, because this can start a discussion about changing invariant.group to just invariant. PDF version of this RFC can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72TmzNsY6Z8ZmpOUnB5dDZfSFU/view?usp=sharing Background: Initial old design:

Hi Piotr, I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two nonequivalent invariants associated with the same pointer SSA value simultaneously, there's no need to also identify the invariant with a metadata string as well. When we need a new "identifier" for the pointed-to value, we

Some more information about the relaxation pass whose effectiveness and convergence guarantees were listed as a concern: TLDR; Our relaxation pass is similar to what LLVM’s MCAssembler does but with a caveat for efficiency. Our experimental results show it is efficient and convergence is guaranteed. Our relaxation pass is very similar to what MCAssembler does as it needs to solve the same

Is there large value from deferring the block ordering to link time? That is, does the block layout algorithm need to consider global layout issues when deciding which blocks to put together and which to relegate to the far-away part of the code? Or, could the propellor-optimized compile step instead split each function into only 2 pieces -- one containing an "optimally-ordered" set of

Hi folks, here is a link to the proposal that we've been working on lately: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16GVtCpzK8sIHNc2qZz6RN8amICNBt vjWUod2SujZVEo/edit?usp=sharing But for the record, I also paste it here. Feedback will be really appreciated!

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > here is a link to the proposal that we've been working on lately: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16GVtCpzK8sIHNc2qZz6RN8amICNBtvjWUod2SujZVEo/edit?usp=sharing

Hello Maksim, On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:52 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > I want to clarify one thing before sending a detailed reply: did you > evaluate > > BOLT on Clang built with basic block sections? > In the makefile you reference, > > there are two versions: a “vanilla” and a default built with function > sections.

Hello, I wanted to consolidate all the discussions and our final thoughts on the concerns raised. I have attached a document consolidating it. BOLT’s performance gains inspired this work and we believe BOLT is a great piece of engineering. However, there are build environments where scalability is critical and memory limits per process are tight : * Debug Fission,

2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Piotr, >> >> I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a >> particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two >> nonequivalent

Hello Maksim, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:57 AM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Cool. The new numbers look good. If you run BOLT with jemalloc library > > preloaded, you will likely get a runtime closer to 1 minute. We’ve noticed > that > > compared to the default malloc, it improves the multithreaded > > performance and brings down memory usage

Hi folks, please check out our RFC: Supported Optimizations attribute https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s0n-JVaSNML1Z9SCZVg2bgisxswIJAK2Tp9DahucW10/edit?usp=sharing Pasting it here for the record: RFC: supported_optimizations attribute Piotr Padlewski - piotr.padlewski at gmail.com Krzysztof Pszeniczny - kpszeniczny at google.com December 2018 Introduction Sometimes a possible class of

2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > > 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>: > >> On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I think

Hi John, 2018-03-28 23:23 GMT+02:00 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com>: > > > On Mar 19, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > here is a link to the proposal that we've been working on lately: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16GVtCpzK8sIHNc2qZz6RN8am >

On 01/28/2017 10:36 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: > > > 2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov > <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>: > > > On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote: >> >> >> 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk >> <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>>: >>

We are going to be at the llvm-dev meeting the next two days. We will get back to you after that. Sri On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > Thank you for replying to our feedback. 7 out 12 high-level concerns have > been > > answered; 2 of them are fully addressed. The rest are being tracked at the > >

Greetings, We, at Google, recently evaluated Facebook’s BOLT, a Post Link Optimizer framework, on large google benchmarks and noticed that it improves key performance metrics of these benchmarks by 2% to 6%, which is pretty impressive as this is over and above a baseline binaryalready heavily optimized with ThinLTO + PGO. Furthermore, BOLT is also able to improve the performance of binaries