This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] Ensure count_scale is no larger than REG_BR_PROB_BASE


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> I've updated the patch. Shall I move the check inside cgraph_clone_node?
>
> Thanks,
> I think it is OK as it is. I belive individual users should know what do to
> in such cases themselves.
> You may want to also check what ipa-cp is doing.

I checked ipa-cp, but didn't see count propagation anywhere. Could you
point me to the function?

Thanks,
Dehao

>
> Patch is OK (with Changelog)
> Honza
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dehao
>>
>> Index: gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (revision 210535)
>> +++ gcc/ipa-inline-transform.c (working copy)
>> @@ -183,8 +183,9 @@ clone_inlined_nodes (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool d
>>    if (freq_scale == -1)
>>      freq_scale = e->frequency;
>>    n = cgraph_clone_node (e->callee, e->callee->decl,
>> - e->count, freq_scale, update_original,
>> - vNULL, true, inlining_into, NULL);
>> + MIN (e->count, e->callee->count), freq_scale,
>> + update_original, vNULL, true, inlining_into,
>> + NULL);
>>    cgraph_redirect_edge_callee (e, n);
>>   }
>>      }
>> Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/tree-inline.c (revision 210535)
>> +++ gcc/tree-inline.c (working copy)
>> @@ -4355,7 +4355,7 @@ expand_call_inline (basic_block bb, gimple stmt, c
>>       function in any way before this point, as this CALL_EXPR may be
>>       a self-referential call; if we're calling ourselves, we need to
>>       duplicate our body before altering anything.  */
>> -  copy_body (id, bb->count,
>> +  copy_body (id, cg_edge->callee->count,
>>         GCOV_COMPUTE_SCALE (cg_edge->frequency, CGRAPH_FREQ_BASE),
>>       bb, return_block, NULL);
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >> Do you mean adjusting bb->count? Because in
>> >> expand_call_inline(tree-inline.c), it will use bb->count to pass into
>> >> copy_body to calculate count_scale.
>> >
>> > What about taking here callee->count instead? For inline nodes without
>> > any capping hack, bb->count == edge->count = callee->count.
>> >
>> > When profile ends up being obviously inconsistent, I would say that
>> > inliner can cap callee->count during producing the clone...
>> >
>> > Honza
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Dehao
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>> >> >> In AutoFDO, a basic block's count can be much larger than it's actual
>> >> >> count because debug info might be incorrect. In this case, a call edge
>> >> >> count (calculated from BB count) could be much larger than callee's
>> >> >> header count, making the count_scale incorrectly large.
>> >> >
>> >> > In this case I still think we should handle this when producing the clone:
>> >> > we do not want to have clone's count much larger as well, so i think inliner
>> >> > and ipa-cp needs to deal with capping here instead....
>> >> >
>> >> > Honza
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dehao
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Honza


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