On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 6 April 2016 at 13:44, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 April 2016 at 18:28, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 5 April 2016 at 16:58, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 4 April 2016 at 19:44, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
> >> >> >> >> index 9eb63c2..bc0c612 100644
> >> >> >> >> --- a/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
> >> >> >> >> +++ b/gcc/lto/lto-partition.c
> >> >> >> >> @@ -511,9 +511,20 @@ lto_balanced_map (int n_lto_partitions)
> >> >> >> >> varpool_order.qsort (varpool_node_cmp);
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> /* Compute partition size and create the first partition. */
> >> >> >> >> + if (PARAM_VALUE (MIN_PARTITION_SIZE) > PARAM_VALUE
> >> >> >> >> (MAX_PARTITION_SIZE))
> >> >> >> >> + fatal_error (input_location, "min partition size cannot be
> >> >> >> >> greater than max partition size");
> >> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> >> partition_size = total_size / n_lto_partitions;
> >> >> >> >> if (partition_size < PARAM_VALUE (MIN_PARTITION_SIZE))
> >> >> >> >> partition_size = PARAM_VALUE (MIN_PARTITION_SIZE);
> >> >> >> >> + else if (partition_size > PARAM_VALUE (MAX_PARTITION_SIZE))
> >> >> >> >> + {
> >> >> >> >> + n_lto_partitions = total_size / PARAM_VALUE
> >> >> >> >> (MAX_PARTITION_SIZE);
> >> >> >> >> + if (total_size % PARAM_VALUE (MAX_PARTITION_SIZE))
> >> >> >> >> + n_lto_partitions++;
> >> >> >> >> + partition_size = total_size / n_lto_partitions;
> >> >> >> >> + }
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > lto_balanced_map actually works in a way that looks for cheapest
> >> >> >> > cutpoint in range
> >> >> >> > 3/4*parittion_size to 2*partition_size and picks the cheapest
> >> >> >> > range.
> >> >> >> > Setting partition_size to this value will thus not cause
> >> >> >> > partitioner to produce smaller
> >> >> >> > partitions only. I suppose modify the conditional:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > /* Partition is too large, unwind into step when best cost
> >> >> >> > was reached and
> >> >> >> > start new partition. */
> >> >> >> > if (partition->insns > 2 * partition_size)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > and/or in the code above set the partition_size to half of
> >> >> >> > total_size/max_size.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I know this is somewhat sloppy. This was really just first cut
> >> >> >> > implementation
> >> >> >> > many years ago. I expected to reimplement it marter soon, but then
> >> >> >> > there was
> >> >> >> > never really a need for it (I am trying to avoid late IPA
> >> >> >> > optimizations so the
> >> >> >> > partitioning decisions should mostly affect compile time
> >> >> >> > performance only).
> >> >> >> > If ARM is more sensitive for partitining, perhaps it would make
> >> >> >> > sense to try to
> >> >> >> > look for something smarter.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> >> npartitions = 1;
> >> >> >> >> partition = new_partition ("");
> >> >> >> >> if (symtab->dump_file)
> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/gcc/lto/lto.c b/gcc/lto/lto.c
> >> >> >> >> index 9dd513f..294b8a4 100644
> >> >> >> >> --- a/gcc/lto/lto.c
> >> >> >> >> +++ b/gcc/lto/lto.c
> >> >> >> >> @@ -3112,6 +3112,12 @@ do_whole_program_analysis (void)
> >> >> >> >> timevar_pop (TV_WHOPR_WPA);
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> timevar_push (TV_WHOPR_PARTITIONING);
> >> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> >> + if (flag_lto_partition != LTO_PARTITION_BALANCED
> >> >> >> >> + && PARAM_VALUE (MAX_PARTITION_SIZE) != INT_MAX)
> >> >> >> >> + fatal_error (input_location, "--param max-lto-partition
> >> >> >> >> should only"
> >> >> >> >> + " be used with balanced partitioning\n");
> >> >> >> >> +
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think we should wire in resonable MAX_PARTITION_SIZE default.
> >> >> >> > THe value you
> >> >> >> > found experimentally may be a good start. For that reason we can't
> >> >> >> > really
> >> >> >> > refuse a value when !LTO_PARTITION_BALANCED. Just document it as
> >> >> >> > parameter for
> >> >> >> > balanced partitioning only and add a parameter to lto_balanced_map
> >> >> >> > specifying whether
> >> >> >> > this param should be honored (because the same path is used for
> >> >> >> > partitioning to one partition)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Otherwise the patch looks good to me modulo missing documentation.
> >> >> >> Thanks for the review. I have updated the patch.
> >> >> >> Does this version look OK ?
> >> >> >> I had randomly chosen 10000, not sure if that's an appropriate value
> >> >> >> for default.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think it's way too small. This is roughly the number of GIMPLE
> >> >> > stmts
> >> >> > (thus roughly the number of instructions). So with say a 8 byte
> >> >> > instruction format it is on the order of 80kB. You'd want to have a
> >> >> > default of at least several ten times of large-unit-insns (also
> >> >> > 10000).
> >> >> > I'd choose sth like 1000000 (one million). I find the
> >> >> > lto-min-partition
> >> >> > number quite small as well (and up it by a factor of 10).
> >> >> Done in this version.
> >> >
> >> > I'd do that separately.
> >> >
> >> > Please no default parameter for lto_balanced_map (), instead change
> >> > all callers.
> >> >
> >> >> Is it OK after bootstrap+test ?
> >> >
> >> > Note that this is for stage1 only. I'll leave approval to Honza
> >> > (also verification of the default max param - not sure if for example
> >> > chromium or firefox should/will be split to more than 32 partitions
> >> > with the patch)
> >> Removed default parameter in this version. I verified with the patch
> >> for chromium LTO build:
> >> n_lto_partitions == 32, ltrans_partitions.length() == 31
> >
> > Just noticed that lto_balanced_map already gets PARAM_LTO_PARTITIONS,
> > so why not pass it PARAM_MAX_PARTITION_SIZE or 0 (as magic value for
> > unlimited) instead of a bool parameter?
> Indeed. Instead of 0, would it be OK to pass INT_MAX as 2nd parameter in case
> of single partition, since in that case partition->insns >
> max_partition_size will never
> be true, which would effectively ignore max_partition_size.
You mean we are limited to INT_MAX partition size anyway, even on 64bit
systems? ... (but yes, using a suitable large number works as well)
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> >> Thanks,
> >> Prathamesh
> >> >
> >> > Richard.
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Prathamesh
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Richard.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I have a silly question about partitioning: Does it hamper
> >> >> >> transformations on ipa optimizations if caller and
> >> >> >> callee get placed in separate partitions ? For instance if callee is
> >> >> >> supposed to be inlined
> >> >> >> into caller, would inlining still take place if callee and caller get
> >> >> >> placed in separate partitions ?
> >> >> >> I tried with a trivial example with -flto-partition=max
> >> >> >> which created 3 partitions for 3 functions (bar, foo and main), and
> >> >> >> it was
> >> >> >> able to inline bar into foo and foo into main. I am not sure how
> >> >> >> that happens.
> >> >> >> I thought ltrans can perform transformations on functions only within
> >> >> >> a single partition
> >> >> >> and not across partitions ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >> Prathamesh
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Honza
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> >> >> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham
> >> >> > Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> >> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
> >> > HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
> > 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB
21284 (AG Nuernberg)
