On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 03/19/2014 03:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > > There are stats for Firefox with LTO and -O2. According to graphs it
> > > looks that memory consumption for parallel WPA phase is similar.
> > > When
On 03/19/2014 03:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Martin Liška wrote:
There are stats for Firefox with LTO and -O2. According to graphs it
looks that memory consumption for parallel WPA phase is similar.
When I disable parallel WPA, wpa footprint is ~4GB, but ltrans memory
foo
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Martin Liška wrote:
> There are stats for Firefox with LTO and -O2. According to graphs it
> looks that memory consumption for parallel WPA phase is similar.
> When I disable parallel WPA, wpa footprint is ~4GB, but ltrans memory
> footprint is similar to parallel WPA that red
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Index: gcc/ggc-page.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/ggc-page.c (revision 208642)
> > +++ gcc/ggc-page.c (working copy)
> > @@ -1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Index: gcc/ggc-page.c
> ===
> --- gcc/ggc-page.c (revision 208642)
> +++ gcc/ggc-page.c (working copy)
> @@ -1199,6 +1199,8 @@ ggc_round_alloc_size (size_t requested_s
This patch avoids calling ggc_collect after we possibly forked
during WPA phase as that necessarily causes a lot of page
unsharing. I have verified that during a LTO bootstrap we
do not allocate GC memory during (or after) lto_wpa_write_files,
thus the effect on memory use should be positive (the
