This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Sanitize block partitioning under -freorder-blocks-and-partition
- From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "marxin.liska" <marxin dot liska at gmail dot com>, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:47:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Sanitize block partitioning under -freorder-blocks-and-partition
- References: <CAAe5K+WToUznwFFfm5beapXAOOrOgxHR8LXmYBTL70C4VVsT+w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130808222332 dot GA31755 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAe5K+W+8borbPkt4BB1ayRgDbFBtd6oyZsGuUiC854o9t0Rjg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130809095843 dot GC31755 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAe5K+XXT6t5CXBDXPWMNSrLWwqfw8F_J2fNUAN2afqb5qPhzQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130809152804 dot GA6579 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAe5K+UcMevsDcXOeq5tu0+u-FrLVVWR6Wd20ZhBHNWdNsQ4Zw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAAe5K+W+VEERrsaCCjCD=n40_MO2EPashDp5qnKoS8SLaSjBjQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130817204408 dot GA16557 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAAe5K+XGKvd+_8Ukp0kpOWvc2k165F=4fdemf-iDz+QkirLPmg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130819150942 dot GA28264 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> Remember it isn't using dominance anymore. The latest patch was
>> instead ensuring the most frequent path between hot blocks and the
>> entry/exit are marked hot. That should be better than the dominance
>> approach used in the earlier version.
>
> Indeed, that looks more resonable approach.
> Can you point me to the last version of patch? Last one I remember still
> walked dominators...
I've included the latest patch below. I still use dominators in the
post-cfg-optimization fixup (fixup_partitions), but not in the
partition sanitizing done during the partitioning itself
(sanitize_hot_paths). The former is looking for hot bbs newly
dominated by cold bbs after cfg transformations.
>>
>> > We can commit it and work on better solution incrementally but it will
>> > probably mean replacing it later. If you think it makes things easier
>> > to work on it incrementally, I think the patch is OK.
>>
>> Yes, I think this is a big step forward from what is there now for
>> splitting, which does the splitting purely based on bb count in
>> isolation. I don't have a much better solution in mind yet.
>>
>> >>
>> >> > - I'll try building and profiling gimp myself to see if I can
>> >> > reproduce the issue with code executing out of the cold section.
>> >>
>> >> I have spent some time this week trying to get the latest gimp Martin
>> >> pointed me to configured and built, but it took awhile to track down
>> >> and configure/build all of the required versions of dependent
>> >> packages. I'm still hitting some issues trying to get it compiled, so
>> >> it may not yet be configured properly. I'll take a look again early
>> >> next week.
>> >
>> > I do not think there is anything special about gimp. You can probably
>> > take any other bigger app, like GCC itself. With profiledbootstrap
>> > and linker script to lock unlikely section you should get ICEs where
>> > we jump into cold secton and should not.
>>
>> Ok, please point me to the linker script and I will try gcc
>> profiledbootstrap as well. I wanted to try gimp if possible as I
>> haven't seen this much jumping to the cold section in some of the
>> internal apps I tried.
>
> You can also discuss with Martin the systemtap script to plot disk accesses
> during the startup. It is very handy for analyzing the code layout issues
Ok. I am using linux perf to collect this info (fed through some
scripts that munge and plot the data).
>
> It may be interesting to get similar script taking traces from valgrind
> and ploting the most frequent calls in the final layout ;)
I think linux perf -g to get a callgraph should give similar data.
Teresa
>
> Honza
2013-08-05 Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com>
Steven Bosscher <steven@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. */
--
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413