This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc 3.1 is still very slow, compared to 2.95.3



> I am sorry to say that according to the profiles, there is no single
> place in GCC where we burn most of the CPU cycles.  The slowdown is commulative
> result of many patches and it is clear that compile time performance has not
> been thread seriously during GCC development (3.0 had number of other problems
> that were addressed).  I personaly will care more the compile time performance
> in next development and hope we will set up some periodic tester to check this
> (this has proved to be effective at runtime perfomrance, where 3.1 is very well of).

I can't prove any of the following, but it seemed to me that the major 
slowdown in the compiler was when we switched from obstacks to ggc.  On a 
machine I regularly use to bootstrap the compiler (StrongARM 110, which 
has 2x16K caches) bootstrap times went from ~3 hours to ~6 hours at around 
the time of that change; despite tuning the GC code, they've never 
recovered, since we've added additional languages etc as well.

My suspicions are:

Memory use efficiency:  I suspect we have many partially used pages, since 
each page of memory is only used for objects of a single size we end up 
with many pages with just a few items in them; in particular persistent 
objects can now be scattered anywhere across that memory, rather than 
being gathered in a single block.  We now have to allocate far more pages 
for a small compilation than we did before; I rarely see compilation of a 
C file requiring less than 8M now, it used to be around 3-4M for a typical 
file in GCC.  To make matters worse we regularly touch most of those pages 
rather than just a subset of them, which means the OS can't usefully page 
any of them out.

Cache locality: since things are scattered all over the place we need a 
far larger cache to achieve the same hit rate -- gcc has never been 
particularly kind to caches, but I suspect it is worse now.

Neither of these is going to show up on the standard sampling statistics 
that we measure since the cost is distributed across the entire 
compilation.

I used to be able to bootstrap on the machine I have with -j2 to get about 
a 5% reduction in compile time.  The growth in memory usage of the 
compiler means that now I get about 20% increase in compile time because 
the machine just thrashes at times.

R.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]