On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> The patch looks OK to me in general (I can not approve it).
>> Still have one question...
>>> +
>>> +/* Ensure that no cold bbs dominate hot bbs along the dominance or
>>> + post-dominance DIR, for example as a result of edge weight insanities.
>>> + Returns the updated value of COLD_BB_COUNT and adds newly-hot bbs
>>> + to BBS_IN_HOT_PARTITION. */
>>> +
>>> +static unsigned int
>>> +sanitize_dominator_hotness (enum cdi_direction dir, unsigned int
>>> cold_bb_count,
>>> + vec<basic_block> *bbs_in_hot_partition)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Callers check this. */
>>> + gcc_checking_assert (cold_bb_count);
>>> +
>>> + bool dom_calculated_here = !dom_info_available_p (dir);
>>> +
>>> + if (dom_calculated_here)
>>> + calculate_dominance_info (dir);
>>> +
>>> + /* Keep examining hot bbs while we still have some left to check
>>> + and there are remaining cold bbs. */
>>> + vec<basic_block> hot_bbs_to_check = bbs_in_hot_partition->copy ();
>>> + while (! hot_bbs_to_check.is_empty ()
>>> + && cold_bb_count)
>>> + {
>>> + basic_block bb = hot_bbs_to_check.pop ();
>>> + basic_block dom_bb = get_immediate_dominator (dir, bb);
>>> +
>>> + /* If bb's immediate dominator is also hot (or unpartitioned,
>>> + e.g. the entry block) then it is ok. If it is cold, it
>>> + needs to be adjusted. */
>>> + if (BB_PARTITION (dom_bb) != BB_COLD_PARTITION)
>>> + continue;
>>
>> What will hapepn on
>>
>> if (t)
>> something
>> else
>> something else
>> for (i=0;i<1000000;i++)
>> something else2
>>
>> I would expect if/something and something else to be cold by profile
>> feedback.
>> Your dominator code will bring the if into hot partition but both paths
>> of conditional will be cold, so the number of crossings will actually grow.
>
> You are right, this case will not be handled well.
>
>>
>> If we want to have at least some path to hot blocks in the hot region, I
>> suspect
>> we could walk back from hot regions to entry and keep those in hot regions
>> rather
>> than relying on the dominator tree...
>> But I am sure such things can be dealt with incrementally.
>
> I am going to fix this and will resend the patch. Rather than look at
> the immediate dominator of each hot block, we need to ensure that at
> least one pred bb is hot. In your example, if that was a 50-50 branch,
> then IMO both preds should be marked hot.
New patch below that walks the preds of each hot bb instead of the dominators.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu. Also ensured that
a profiledbootstrap passed with -freorder-blocks-and-partition enabled
still works.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2013-08-05 Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com>
Steven Bosscher <ste...@gcc.gnu.org>
* cfgrtl.c (fixup_new_cold_bb): New routine.
(commit_edge_insertions): Invoke fixup_partitions.
(find_partition_fixes): New routine.
(fixup_partitions): Ditto.
(verify_hot_cold_block_grouping): Update comments.
(rtl_verify_edges): Invoke find_partition_fixes.
(rtl_verify_bb_pointers): Update comments.
(rtl_verify_bb_layout): Ditto.
* basic-block.h (fixup_partitions): Declare.
* cfgcleanup.c (try_optimize_cfg): Invoke fixup_partitions.
* bb-reorder.c (sanitize_hot_paths): New function.
(find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges): Invoke
sanitize_hot_paths.
Index: cfgrtl.c
===================================================================
--- cfgrtl.c (revision 201461)
+++ cfgrtl.c (working copy)
@@ -1341,6 +1341,43 @@ fixup_partition_crossing (edge e)
}
}
+/* Called when block BB has been reassigned to the cold partition,
+ because it is now dominated by another cold block,
+ to ensure that the region crossing attributes are updated. */
+
+static void
+fixup_new_cold_bb (basic_block bb)
+{
+ edge e;
+ edge_iterator ei;
+
+ /* This is called when a hot bb is found to now be dominated
+ by a cold bb and therefore needs to become cold. Therefore,
+ its preds will no longer be region crossing. Any non-dominating
+ preds that were previously hot would also have become cold
+ in the caller for the same region. Any preds that were previously
+ region-crossing will be adjusted in fixup_partition_crossing. */
+ FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, bb->preds)
+ {
+ fixup_partition_crossing (e);
+ }
+
+ /* Possibly need to make bb's successor edges region crossing,
+ or remove stale region crossing. */
+ FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, bb->succs)
+ {
+ /* We can't have fall-through edges across partition boundaries.
+ Note that force_nonfallthru will do any necessary partition
+ boundary fixup by calling fixup_partition_crossing itself. */
+ if ((e->flags & EDGE_FALLTHRU)
+ && BB_PARTITION (bb) != BB_PARTITION (e->dest)
+ && e->dest != EXIT_BLOCK_PTR)
+ force_nonfallthru (e);
+ else
+ fixup_partition_crossing (e);
+ }
+}
+
/* Attempt to change code to redirect edge E to TARGET. Don't do that on
expense of adding new instructions or reordering basic blocks.
@@ -1979,6 +2016,14 @@ commit_edge_insertions (void)
{
basic_block bb;
+ /* Optimization passes that invoke this routine can cause hot blocks
+ previously reached by both hot and cold blocks to become dominated only
+ by cold blocks. This will cause the verification below to fail,
+ and lead to now cold code in the hot section. In some cases this
+ may only be visible after newly unreachable blocks are deleted,
+ which will be done by fixup_partitions. */
+ fixup_partitions ();
+
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
verify_flow_info ();
#endif
@@ -2173,6 +2218,101 @@ get_last_bb_insn (basic_block bb)
return end;
}
+/* Sanity check partition hotness to ensure that basic blocks in
+ the cold partition don't dominate basic blocks in the hot partition.
+ If FLAG_ONLY is true, report violations as errors. Otherwise
+ re-mark the dominated blocks as cold, since this is run after
+ cfg optimizations that may make hot blocks previously reached
+ by both hot and cold blocks now only reachable along cold paths. */
+
+static vec<basic_block>
+find_partition_fixes (bool flag_only)
+{
+ basic_block bb;
+ vec<basic_block> bbs_in_cold_partition = vNULL;
+ vec<basic_block> bbs_to_fix = vNULL;
+
+ /* Callers check this. */
+ gcc_checking_assert (crtl->has_bb_partition);
+
+ FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
+ if ((BB_PARTITION (bb) == BB_COLD_PARTITION))
+ bbs_in_cold_partition.safe_push (bb);
+
+ if (bbs_in_cold_partition.is_empty ())
+ return vNULL;
+
+ bool dom_calculated_here = !dom_info_available_p (CDI_DOMINATORS);
+
+ if (dom_calculated_here)
+ calculate_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
+
+ while (! bbs_in_cold_partition.is_empty ())
+ {
+ bb = bbs_in_cold_partition.pop ();
+ /* Any blocks dominated by a block in the cold section
+ must also be cold. */
+ basic_block son;
+ for (son = first_dom_son (CDI_DOMINATORS, bb);
+ son;
+ son = next_dom_son (CDI_DOMINATORS, son))
+ {
+ /* If son is not yet cold, then mark it cold here and
+ enqueue it for further processing. */
+ if ((BB_PARTITION (son) != BB_COLD_PARTITION))
+ {
+ if (flag_only)
+ error ("non-cold basic block %d dominated "
+ "by a block in the cold partition (%d)",
son->index, bb->index);
+ else
+ BB_SET_PARTITION (son, BB_COLD_PARTITION);
+ bbs_to_fix.safe_push (son);
+ bbs_in_cold_partition.safe_push (son);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (dom_calculated_here)
+ free_dominance_info (CDI_DOMINATORS);
+
+ return bbs_to_fix;
+}
+
+/* Perform cleanup on the hot/cold bb partitioning after optimization
+ passes that modify the cfg. */
+
+void
+fixup_partitions (void)
+{
+ basic_block bb;
+
+ if (!crtl->has_bb_partition)
+ return;
+
+ /* Delete any blocks that became unreachable and weren't
+ already cleaned up, for example during edge forwarding
+ and convert_jumps_to_returns. This will expose more
+ opportunities for fixing the partition boundaries here.
+ Also, the calculation of the dominance graph during verification
+ will assert if there are unreachable nodes. */
+ delete_unreachable_blocks ();
+
+ /* If there are partitions, do a sanity check on them: A basic block in
+ a cold partition cannot dominate a basic block in a hot partition.
+ Fixup any that now violate this requirement, as a result of edge
+ forwarding and unreachable block deletion. */
+ vec<basic_block> bbs_to_fix = find_partition_fixes (false);
+
+ /* Do the partition fixup after all necessary blocks have been converted to
+ cold, so that we only update the region crossings the minimum number of
+ places, which can require forcing edges to be non fallthru. */
+ while (! bbs_to_fix.is_empty ())
+ {
+ bb = bbs_to_fix.pop ();
+ fixup_new_cold_bb (bb);
+ }
+}
+
/* Verify, in the basic block chain, that there is at most one switch
between hot/cold partitions. This condition will not be true until
after reorder_basic_blocks is called. */
@@ -2219,7 +2359,8 @@ verify_hot_cold_block_grouping (void)
/* Perform several checks on the edges out of each block, such as
the consistency of the branch probabilities, the correctness
of hot/cold partition crossing edges, and the number of expected
- successor edges. */
+ successor edges. Also verify that the dominance relationship
+ between hot/cold blocks is sane. */
static int
rtl_verify_edges (void)
@@ -2382,6 +2523,14 @@ rtl_verify_edges (void)
}
}
+ /* If there are partitions, do a sanity check on them: A basic block in
+ a cold partition cannot dominate a basic block in a hot partition. */
+ if (crtl->has_bb_partition && !err)
+ {
+ vec<basic_block> bbs_to_fix = find_partition_fixes (true);
+ err = !bbs_to_fix.is_empty ();
+ }
+
/* Clean up. */
return err;
}
@@ -2515,7 +2664,7 @@ rtl_verify_bb_pointers (void)
and NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK
- verify that no fall_thru edge crosses hot/cold partition boundaries
- verify that there are no pending RTL branch predictions
- - verify that there is a single hot/cold partition boundary after bbro
+ - verify that hot blocks are not dominated by cold blocks
In future it can be extended check a lot of other stuff as well
(reachability of basic blocks, life information, etc. etc.). */
@@ -2761,7 +2910,8 @@ rtl_verify_bb_layout (void)
- check that all insns are in the basic blocks
(except the switch handling code, barriers and notes)
- check that all returns are followed by barriers
- - check that all fallthru edge points to the adjacent blocks. */
+ - check that all fallthru edge points to the adjacent blocks
+ - verify that there is a single hot/cold partition boundary after bbro */
static int
rtl_verify_flow_info (void)
Index: basic-block.h
===================================================================
--- basic-block.h (revision 201461)
+++ basic-block.h (working copy)
@@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ extern bool contains_no_active_insn_p (const_basic
extern bool forwarder_block_p (const_basic_block);
extern bool can_fallthru (basic_block, basic_block);
extern void emit_barrier_after_bb (basic_block bb);
+extern void fixup_partitions (void);
/* In cfgbuild.c. */
extern void find_many_sub_basic_blocks (sbitmap);
Index: cfgcleanup.c
===================================================================
--- cfgcleanup.c (revision 201461)
+++ cfgcleanup.c (working copy)
@@ -2807,10 +2807,21 @@ try_optimize_cfg (int mode)
df_analyze ();
}
+ if (changed)
+ {
+ /* Edge forwarding in particular can cause hot blocks previously
+ reached by both hot and cold blocks to become dominated only
+ by cold blocks. This will cause the verification
below to fail,
+ and lead to now cold code in the hot section. This is not easy
+ to detect and fix during edge forwarding, and in some cases
+ is only visible after newly unreachable blocks are deleted,
+ which will be done in fixup_partitions. */
+ fixup_partitions ();
+
#ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING
- if (changed)
- verify_flow_info ();
+ verify_flow_info ();
#endif
+ }
changed_overall |= changed;
first_pass = false;
Index: bb-reorder.c
===================================================================
--- bb-reorder.c (revision 201461)
+++ bb-reorder.c (working copy)
@@ -1444,27 +1444,134 @@ fix_up_crossing_landing_pad (eh_landing_pad old_lp
ei_next (&ei);
}
+
+/* Ensure that all hot bbs are included in a hot path through the
+ procedure. This is done by calling this function twice, once
+ with WALK_UP true (to look for paths from the entry to hot bbs) and
+ once with WALK_UP false (to look for paths from hot bbs to the exit).
+ Returns the updated value of COLD_BB_COUNT and adds newly-hot bbs
+ to BBS_IN_HOT_PARTITION. */
+
+static unsigned int
+sanitize_hot_paths (bool walk_up, unsigned int cold_bb_count,
+ vec<basic_block> *bbs_in_hot_partition)
+{
+ /* Callers check this. */
+ gcc_checking_assert (cold_bb_count);
+
+ /* Keep examining hot bbs while we still have some left to check
+ and there are remaining cold bbs. */
+ vec<basic_block> hot_bbs_to_check = bbs_in_hot_partition->copy ();
+ while (! hot_bbs_to_check.is_empty ()
+ && cold_bb_count)
+ {
+ basic_block bb = hot_bbs_to_check.pop ();
+ vec<edge, va_gc> *edges = walk_up ? bb->preds : bb->succs;
+ edge e;
+ edge_iterator ei;
+ int highest_probability = 0;
+ bool found = false;
+
+ /* Walk the preds/succs and check if there is at least one already
+ marked hot. Keep track of the most frequent pred/succ so that we
+ can mark it hot if we don't find one. */
+ FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, edges)
+ {
+ basic_block reach_bb = walk_up ? e->src : e->dest;
+
+ if (e->flags & EDGE_DFS_BACK)
+ continue;
+
+ if (BB_PARTITION (reach_bb) != BB_COLD_PARTITION)
+ {
+ found = true;
+ break;
+ }
+ if (e->probability > highest_probability)
+ highest_probability = e->probability;
+ }
+
+ /* If bb is reached by (or reaches, in the case of !WALK_UP) another hot
+ block (or unpartitioned, e.g. the entry block) then it is ok. If not,
+ then the most frequent pred (or succ) needs to be adjusted. In the
+ case where multiple preds/succs have the same probability (e.g. a
+ 50-50 branch), then both will be adjusted. */
+ if (found)
+ continue;
+
+ FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, edges)
+ {
+ if (e->flags & EDGE_DFS_BACK)
+ continue;
+ if (e->probability < highest_probability)
+ continue;
+
+ basic_block reach_bb = walk_up ? e->src : e->dest;
+
+ /* We have a hot bb with an immediate dominator that is cold.
+ The dominator needs to be re-marked hot. */
+ BB_SET_PARTITION (reach_bb, BB_HOT_PARTITION);
+ cold_bb_count--;
+
+ /* Now we need to examine newly-hot reach_bb to see if it is also
+ dominated by a cold bb. */
+ bbs_in_hot_partition->safe_push (reach_bb);
+ hot_bbs_to_check.safe_push (reach_bb);
+ }
+ }
+
+ return cold_bb_count;
+}
+
+
/* Find the basic blocks that are rarely executed and need to be moved to
a separate section of the .o file (to cut down on paging and improve
cache locality). Return a vector of all edges that cross. */
-static vec<edge>
+static vec<edge>
find_rarely_executed_basic_blocks_and_crossing_edges (void)
{
vec<edge> crossing_edges = vNULL;
basic_block bb;
edge e;
edge_iterator ei;
+ unsigned int cold_bb_count = 0;
+ vec<basic_block> bbs_in_hot_partition = vNULL;
/* Mark which partition (hot/cold) each basic block belongs in. */
FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
{
if (probably_never_executed_bb_p (cfun, bb))
- BB_SET_PARTITION (bb, BB_COLD_PARTITION);
+ {
+ BB_SET_PARTITION (bb, BB_COLD_PARTITION);
+ cold_bb_count++;
+ }
else
- BB_SET_PARTITION (bb, BB_HOT_PARTITION);
+ {
+ BB_SET_PARTITION (bb, BB_HOT_PARTITION);
+ bbs_in_hot_partition.safe_push (bb);
+ }
}
+ /* Ensure that hot bbs are included along a hot path from the entry to exit.
+ Several different possibilities may include cold bbs along all paths
+ to/from a hot bb. One is that there are edge weight insanities
+ due to optimization phases that do not properly update basic block profile
+ counts. The second is that the entry of the function may not be
hot, because
+ it is entered fewer times than the number of profile training
runs, but there
+ is a loop inside the function that causes blocks within the function to be
+ above the threshold for hotness. This is fixed by walking up from hot bbs
+ to the entry block, and then down from hot bbs to the exit, performing
+ partitioning fixups as necessary. */
+ if (cold_bb_count)
+ {
+ mark_dfs_back_edges ();
+ cold_bb_count = sanitize_hot_paths (true, cold_bb_count,
+ &bbs_in_hot_partition);
+ if (cold_bb_count)
+ sanitize_hot_paths (false, cold_bb_count, &bbs_in_hot_partition);
+ }
+
/* The format of .gcc_except_table does not allow landing pads to
be in a different partition as the throw. Fix this by either
moving or duplicating the landing pads. */
>
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
>>
>> Honza
>
>
>
> --
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
--
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413
