similar to: [LLVMdev] [Proposal] Parallelize post-IPO stage.

On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >> ==================================== >> >> From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to >> step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, >> step 2).and compile

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/17/13 12:35 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage >>> ==================================== >>> >>> From 5k'

On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 6) Miscellaneous > =========== > Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it depends on the definition of > performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not. > However, if performance includes code-size, I think it may have some negative impact. > Following

On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Sean: > > I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a *BIG* change > to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to > populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I > saw quite a few performance

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > > 6) Miscellaneous > =========== > Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it depends on > the definition of > performance. If performance means execution-time, I guess it dose not. >

-----Original Message----- From: Shuxin Yang [mailto:shuxin.llvm at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:50 AM To: Wan, Xiaofei Cc: Evan Cheng; Shuxin Yang; LLVM Developers Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [LLVM Dev] [Discussion] Function-based parallel LLVM backend code generation On 7/16/13 7:23 AM, Wan, Xiaofei wrote: > Yes, the purpose is similar, we

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 3. How to parallelize post-IPO stage > ==================================== > > From 5k' high, the concept is very simple, just to > step 1).divide the merged IR into small pieces, > step 2).and compile each of this pieces independendly. > step 3) the objects of each piece

On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/17/13 4:12 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: >> On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >>> The partitioning should be deterministic. It’s just that the linker output now depends on the partitioning heuristics. As long that decision is based on the input (not the

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

On 7/16/13 5:23 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > Thanks for the proposal. This is important work which is one step towards making LTO more applicable for large applications. Some comments inline. > > On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 3.1.1 Figure out Partition scheme >> ---------------------------------- >> we

On Jul 14, 2013, at 6:38 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 6) Miscellaneous >> =========== >> Will partitioning degrade performance in theory. I think it

On 12 July 2013 15:49, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, There: > > This is the proposal for parallelizing post-ipo stage. See the following > for details. > > I also attach a toy-grade rudimentary implementation. This > implementation can be > used to illustrate some concepts here. This patch is not going to be > committed. > >

A third approach is to decouple the backend compilation and parallelism strategy from the partitioning. The partitioning can spits out partition BC files and some action records in some standard format. All of this can be fed into some driver tools that converts the compilation action file into make/build file of the underlying build system of your choice: 1) it can simply a compiler driver that

On Jul 12, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > 3.2 Compile partitions independently > -------------------------------------- > > There are two camps: one camp advocate compiling partitions via multi-process, > the other one favor multi-thread. > > Inside Apple compiler teams, I'm the only one belong to the 1st comp. I think >

Yes, the purpose is similar, we started this job from last year; But it Shuxin's solution is module based (correct me if I am wrong), we tried this solution and failed for many reasons, it is described in my design document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QSkP6AumMCAVpgzwympD5pI3btPJt4SRgjY-vhyfySg/edit?usp=sharing we need discuss two solution and compare them, then adopt one solution

I have actually came up the 3 approaches to build the post-ipo object independently. The "3rd approach" here is the 1st solution in my original proposal. Almost all coworkers call it sucks:-) Now I accept it because the it has no way to be adaptive. Consider the scenario we compile the llvm compiler. We use "make -j16" for computer with 8 processor, each make-thread invoke

On 7/16/13 7:23 AM, Wan, Xiaofei wrote: > Yes, the purpose is similar, we started this job from last year; > But it Shuxin's solution is module based (correct me if I am wrong), we tried this solution and failed for many reasons, it is described in my design document > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QSkP6AumMCAVpgzwympD5pI3btPJt4SRgjY-vhyfySg/edit?usp=sharing > > we need

Hi, There: I'd like to add bit, called "addr_not_taken", to GlobalVariable in order to indicate if a GlobalVariable doesn't has its address taken or not. 1.The motivation =============== The motivation can be explained by the following example. In this example, variable x does not have its address taken, therefore, it cannot be indirectly access. So, we can prove

On Jul 14, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > The partitioning should be deterministic. It’s just that the linker output now depends on the partitioning heuristics. As long that decision is based on the input (not the host system), then it still meets Eric’s requirements. I just think it’s unfortunate that post-IPO partitioning (or more generally, parallel

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > I have actually came up the 3 approaches to build the post-ipo object > independently. > > The "3rd approach" here is the 1st solution in my original proposal. Almost > all coworkers call it sucks:-) > Now I accept it because the it has no way to be adaptive. > > Consider the