This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [google] Increase inlining limits with FDO/LIPO
I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more than
FDO (I only did SPEC2k LIPO testing).
Thanks,
David
1. SPEC06 (C/C++) with FDO
before after Improvement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400.perlbench 27.4 28.2 2.89% <---
401.bzip2 18.1 18.2 0.28%
403.gcc 25.5 26.3 3.26% <---
429.mcf 26.0 26.0 0.08%
445.gobmk 22.6 23.2 2.30% <----
456.hmmer 20.1 19.8 -1.25%
458.sjeng 23.6 23.6 -0.42%
462.libquantum 57.1 56.9 -0.40%
464.h264ref 34.4 34.1 -0.70%
471.omnetpp 18.8 18.9 0.53%
473.astar 16.6 17.0 2.53% <---
483.xalancbmk 27.4 28.5 3.79% <---
999.specrand 94.9 98.4 3.71% <---
450.soplex 34.5 33.8 -2.00%
447.dealII 32.0 31.9 -0.34%
453.povray 25.9 28.3 9.02% <---
482.sphinx3 32.6 31.4 -3.50%
2. SPEC2k FDO
before after
Improvement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164.gzip 1308 1372 4.95%
175.vpr 1723 1805 4.76%
176.gcc 2407 2504 4.01%
181.mcf 1724 1748 1.38%
186.crafty 2292 2349 2.47%
197.parser 1457 1601 9.88%
252.eon 2557 2588 1.22%
253.perlbmk 2479 2574 3.83%
254.gap 1996 2013 0.84%
255.vortex 2683 2798 4.31%
256.bzip2 1833 1829 -0.26%
300.twolf 2321 2359 1.63%
188.ammp 771 766 -0.72%
183.equake 1071 1071 0.05%
179.art 2954 2979 0.85%
3. SPEC2k LIPO:
before after
Improvement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164.gzip 1311 1405 7.18%
175.vpr 1732 1772 2.35%
176.gcc 2462 2559 3.96%
181.mcf 1723 1731 0.50%
186.crafty 2552 2662 4.33%
197.parser 1468 1671 13.78%
252.eon 2690 3000 11.49%
253.perlbmk 2545 2611 2.60%
254.gap 2097 2152 2.60%
255.vortex 2949 3719 26.11%
256.bzip2 1864 1935 3.78%
300.twolf 2371 2471 4.22%
188.ammp 771 774 0.41%
183.equake 1081 1081 -0.04%
179.art 2878 2884 0.24%
4. SPEC2k LIPO vs FDO before the change:
FDO(before) LIPO(before) Improvement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164.gzip 1308 1311 0.22%
175.vpr 1723 1732 0.53%
176.gcc 2407 2462 2.27%
181.mcf 1724 1723 -0.07%
186.crafty 2292 2552 11.32%
197.parser 1457 1468 0.81%
252.eon 2557 2690 5.20%
253.perlbmk 2479 2545 2.66%
254.gap 1996 2097 5.04%
255.vortex 2683 2949 9.91%
256.bzip2 1833 1864 1.67%
300.twolf 2321 2371 2.15%
188.ammp 771 771 -0.04%
183.equake 1071 1081 1.02%
179.art 2954 2878 -2.59%
5. SPEC2k LIPO vs FDO after the change:
FDO(after) LIPO(after) Improvement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164.gzip 1372 1405 2.36%
175.vpr 1805 1772 -1.79%
176.gcc 2504 2559 2.21%
181.mcf 1748 1731 -0.94%
186.crafty 2349 2662 13.35%
197.parser 1601 1671 4.38%
252.eon 2588 3000 15.88%
253.perlbmk 2574 2611 1.44%
254.gap 2013 2152 6.87%
255.vortex 2798 3719 32.88%
256.bzip2 1829 1935 5.79%
300.twolf 2359 2471 4.75%
188.ammp 766 774 1.10%
183.equake 1071 1081 0.92%
179.art 2979 2884 -3.18%
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mark Heffernan <meheff@google.com> wrote:
> Verified identical binaries created and submitted.
>
> Mark
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> Ok with that change to google/main with some retesting.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Mark Heffernan <meheff@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
>>>> test profile_arcs and branch_probability flags.
>>>
>>> Ah, yes. ?I see your point now. Reverted to the original change with
>>> condition profile_arc_flag and flag_branch_probabilities.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mark Heffernan <meheff@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
>>>>>> profile-use, probably better to check these two:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. ?-fprofile-use
>>>>>> enables profile-arcs, and value profiling is enabled only when
>>>>>> edge/branch profiling is enabled (so no need to be checked).
>>>>>
>>>>> I changed the location where these parameters are set to someplace more
>>>>> appropriate (to where the flags are set when profile gen/use is indicated).
>>>>> ?Verified identical binaries are generated.
>>>>> OK as updated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 2011-05-18 ?Mark Heffernan ?<meheff@google.com>
>>>>> * opts.c (set_profile_parameters): New function.
>>>>> Index: opts.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- opts.c ? ? ?(revision 173666)
>>>>> +++ opts.c ? ? ?(working copy)
>>>>> @@ -1209,6 +1209,25 @@ print_specific_help (unsigned int includ
>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?opts->x_help_columns, opts, lang_mask);
>>>>> ?}
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* Set parameters to more appropriate values when profile information
>>>>> + ? is available. ?*/
>>>>> +static void
>>>>> +set_profile_parameters (struct gcc_options *opts,
>>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct gcc_options *opts_set)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + ?/* With accurate profile information, inlining is much more
>>>>> + ? ? selective and makes better decisions, so increase the
>>>>> + ? ? inlining function size limits. ?*/
>>>>> + ?maybe_set_param_value
>>>>> + ? ?(PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE, 1000,
>>>>> + ? ? opts->x_param_values, opts_set->x_param_values);
>>>>> + ?maybe_set_param_value
>>>>> + ? ?(PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO, 1000,
>>>>> + ? ? opts->x_param_values, opts_set->x_param_values);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>> ?/* Handle target- and language-independent options. ?Return zero to
>>>>> ? ? generate an "unknown option" message. ?Only options that need
>>>>> ? ? extra handling need to be listed here; if you simply want
>>>>> @@ -1560,6 +1579,7 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>>>> ? ? ? ? opts->x_flag_unswitch_loops = value;
>>>>> ? ? ? ?if (!opts_set->x_flag_gcse_after_reload)
>>>>> ? ? ? ? opts->x_flag_gcse_after_reload = value;
>>>>> + ? ? ?set_profile_parameters (opts, opts_set);
>>>>> ? ? ? ?break;
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ?case OPT_fprofile_generate_:
>>>>> @@ -1580,6 +1600,7 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?is done. ?*/
>>>>> ? ? ? ?if (!opts_set->x_flag_ipa_reference && in_lto_p)
>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>>>>> + ? ? ?set_profile_parameters (opts, opts_set);
>>>>> ? ? ? ?break;
>>>>>
>>>>> ? ? ?case OPT_fshow_column:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>