[llvm-dev] Status update on the hot/cold splitting pass (original) (raw)

Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 5 19:14:40 PST 2019

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:39 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:50 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:56 PM Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019, 3:46 PM Vedant Kumar <vedantkumar at apple.com> wrote: Hi Teresa, On Feb 5, 2019, at 2:38 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aditya K via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The splitting pass currently doesn’t move cold symbols into a separate section. Is that affecting your results? Maybe partly, the main reason is that, in the absence of good profile info, we aren't finding many cold blocks. We noticed that the split cold functions are ending up in the regular .text section instead of .text.unlikely. Since that is done much later than splitting and is based on profile counts, it must be the case that profile data is not being propagated to the split functions in some way - do you know offhand if they are getting functionentrycount prof metadata? At the moment, entry counts are not propagated to the split functions. This should explain the behavior you see. Ok, it should be straightforward to add that, will take a look. The other thing we noticed is that the .text.unlikely section is also reducing significantly, so it seems like some of the already cold blocks are getting split - has anyone noticed that? No, but we’ve focused on marking up select commonly-used APIs cold explicitly. The splitting pass skips functions where PSI->isFunctionEntryCold() holds — maybe a stronger check is necessary? Yeah I'm not sure. The cold section assignment uses a slightly different PSI interface, isFunctionColdInCallGraph, but that shouldn't be very different. I'll need to take a closer look later and get back. The later checks internal counts which is more precise. Cold entry count function does not mean the function body is cold. Right, which confuses me since I would think that would cause the reverse (section assignment to think less functions are cold than the splitting). Here splitting does not think the entire function is cold and is trying to split, when isFunctionColdInCallGraph says the function is cold.

I found the problem. The pipeline changes in D57082 to move hot cold split earlier so that it is before inlining also moved it ahead of instrumented PGO annotation, so we don't actually have any profile data yet. I totally missed that in my review. A quick check of moving it a little later after PGO instrumentation annotation fixes this particular issue. I'll send a patch to fix. Teresa

Teresa

David

Thanks, Teresa vedant

Teresa

-Aditya ------------------------------ From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> on behalf of Vedant Kumar <_ _vedantkumar at apple.com> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 1:00 PM To: Aditya K Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sebastian Pop Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status update on the hot/cold splitting pass The splitting pass currently doesn’t move cold symbols into a separate section. Is that affecting your results? On Darwin, we plan on using a symbol attribute to provide an ordering hint to the linker (see r352227, NCOLDFUNC). vedant On Jan 28, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Aditya K via llvm-dev <_ _llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Very happy to see good results. On our side, we are still struggling with getting a good profile to get aggressive hot-cold splitting. Static profile isn't helping much for our use cases. I'll be curious to know if someone got good improvements only with static profile analysis.

-Aditya ------------------------------ From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> on behalf of Vedant Kumar <_ _vedantkumar at apple.com> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 6:29 PM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Cc: Aditya Kumar; Sebastian Pop; Teresa Johnson; jun.l at samsung.com; Duncan Smith; Gerolf Hoflehner Subject: Status update on the hot/cold splitting pass Hello, I’d like to give a status update to the community about the recently-added hot/cold splitting pass. I'll provide some motivation for the pass, describe its implementation, summarize recent/ongoing work, and share early results. # Motivation We (at Apple) have found that memory pressure from resident pages of code is significant on embedded devices. In particular, this pressure spikes during app launches. We’ve been looking into ways to reduce memory pressure. Hot/cold splitting is one part of a solution. # What does hot/cold splitting do? The hot/cold splitting pass identifies cold basic blocks and moves them into separate functions. The linker must order newly-created cold functions away from the rest of the program (say, into a cold section). The idea here is to have these cold pages faulted in relatively infrequently (if at all), and to improve the memory locality of code outside of the cold area. The pass considers profile data, traps, uses of the cold** attribute, and exception-handling code to identify cold blocks. If the pass identifies a cold region that's profitable to extract, it uses LLVM's CodeExtractor utility to split the region out of its original function. Newly-created cold functions are marked minsize (-Oz). The splitting process may occur multiple times per function. The choice to perform splitting at the IR level gave us a lot of flexibility. It allowed us to quickly target different architectures and evaluate new phase orderings. It also made it easier to split out highly complex subgraphs of CFGs (with both live-ins and live-outs). One disadvantage is that we cannot easily split out EH pads ( llvm.org/PR39545). However, our experiments show that doing so only increases the total amount of split code by 2% across the entire iOS shared cache. # Recent/ongoing work Aditya and Sebastian contributed the hot/cold splitting pass in September 2018 (r341669). Since then, work on the pass has continued steadily. It gained the ability to extract larger cold regions (r345209), compile-time improvements (r351892, r351894), and a more effective cost model (r352228). With some experimentation, we found that scheduling splitting before inlining gives better code size results without regressing memory locality (r352080). Along the way, CodeExtractor got better at handling debug info (r344545, r346255), and a few other issues in this utility were fixed (r348205, r350420). At this point, we're able to build & run our software stack with hot/cold splitting enabled. We’d like to introduce a CC1 option to safely toggle splitting on/off (https://reviews.llvm.org/D57265). That would help experiment with and/or deploy the pass. # Early results On internal memory benchmarks, we consistently saw that code page faults were more concentrated with splitting enabled. With splitting, the set of the most-frequently-accessed 95% (99%) of code pages was 10% (resp. 3.6%) smaller. We used a facility in the xnu VM to force pages to be faulted periodically, and ktrace, to collect this data. We settled on this approach because the alternatives (e.g. directly sampling RSS of various processes) gave unstable results, even when measures were taken to stabilize a device (e.g. disabling dynamic frequency switching, SMP, and various other features). On arm64, the performance impact of enabling splitting in the LLVM test suite appears to be in the noise. We think this is because split code amount to just 0.1% of all the code in the test suite. Across the iOS shared cache we see that 0.9% of code is split, with higher percentages in key frameworks (e.g. 7% in libdispatch). For three internal benchmarks, we see geomean score improvements of 1.58%, 0.56%, and 0.27% respectively. We think these results are promising. I’d like to encourage others to evaluate the pass and share results. Thanks! vedant

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com |

-- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190205/7002fcd3/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list