On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 1 April 2016 at 23:02, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > On April 1, 2016 3:48:35 PM GMT+02:00, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> > <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>The attached patch introduces param max-lto-partition which creates an
> >>upper
> >>bound for partition size.
> >>
> >>My primary motivation for this patch is to fix building chromium for
> >>arm
> >>with -flto-partition=one.
> >>Chromium fails to build with -flto-partition={none, one} with assembler
> >>error:
> >>"branch out of range error"
> >>because in both these cases LTO creates a single text section of 18 mb
> >>which exceeds thumb's limit of 16 mb and arm backend emits a short
> >>call if caller and callee are in same section.
> >>This is binutils PR18625:
> >>https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18625
> >>With patch, chromium builds for -flto-partition=one (by creating more
> >>than one but minimal number of partitions to honor 16 mb limit).
> >>I haven't tested with -flto-partition=none but I suppose the build
> >>will still fail for none, because it won't involve partitioning? I am
> >>not sure how to fix for none case.
> >>
> >>As suggested by Jim in binutils PR18625, the proper fix would be to
> >>implement branch relaxation in arm's port of gas, however I suppose
> >>only LTO will realistically create such large sections,
> >>and implementing branch relaxation appears to be quite complicated and
> >>probably too much of
> >>an effort for this single use case, so this patch serves as a
> >>work-around to the issue.
> >>I am looking into fine-tuning the param value for ARM backend to
> >>roughly match limit
> >>of 16 mb.
> >>
> >>AFAIU, this would change semantics of --param n_lto_partitions (or
> >>-flto-partition=one) from
> >>"exactly n_lto_partitions" to "at-least n_lto_partitions". If that's
> >>not desirable maybe we could add
> >>another param/option ?
> >>Cross-tested on arm*-*-*.
> >>Would this patch be OK for stage-1 (after getting param value right
> >>for ARM target) ?
> >
> > What do you want to achieve? Changing =one semantics doesn't look right to
> > me.
> > Adding a param for maximum size sounds good in general, but only to
> > increase the maximum number of partitions for =balanced (the default).
>
> Well, chromium fails to build on ARM with -flto-partition={none, one}
> because the size of text section created with LTO,
> exceeds the limit of 16 mb for thumb2 which results in assembler
> errors: "branch out of range".
> I was trying to fix that by creating minimal number of partitions such
> that size of each partition is not greater than section size limit.
Ok, but you simply shouldn't use -flto-partition={none,one} if it doesn't
work. Note that "partition size" and text section size do not have
a 1:1 correspondence so a safe limit is hard to achieve anyway.
> I suppose in theory the problem could also present with balanced
> partitioning if total_size / n_lto_partitions exceeds section size
> limit,
> although not sure if this will be a practical case.
I guess an artificial testcase can easily hit this. Or you can
hit this by adjusting --param lto-partitions to 1. I think
adding a --param lto-max-partition is missing given that we
already have a --param lto-min-partition and the partitioning
algorithm tries to create lto-partitions partitions (but not smaller
than lto-min-partition) but it never creates more than lto-partitions
partitions as there is no upper bound on individual partition size.
This is also why lto-partitions has such a high default (to exploit
parallelism - but if there is only a very small number of CPU cores
available it doesn't make sense to split up so much for small programs).
That said, lto-partitions is a hint currently but also an upper bound
because we lack lto-max-partition. Let's fix that instead.
Richard.
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
