-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ctx_prof] "Use" support for pre-thinlink. #101338
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -304,6 +304,10 @@ static cl::opt<bool> UseLoopVersioningLICM( | |
"enable-loop-versioning-licm", cl::init(false), cl::Hidden, | ||
cl::desc("Enable the experimental Loop Versioning LICM pass")); | ||
|
||
static cl::opt<std::string> | ||
UseCtxProfile("use-ctx-profile", cl::init(""), cl::Hidden, | ||
cl::desc("Use the specified contextual profile file")); | ||
|
||
namespace llvm { | ||
extern cl::opt<bool> EnableMemProfContextDisambiguation; | ||
|
||
|
@@ -1176,8 +1180,11 @@ PassBuilder::buildModuleSimplificationPipeline(OptimizationLevel Level, | |
// Enable contextual profiling instrumentation. | ||
const bool IsCtxProfGen = !IsPGOInstrGen && IsPreLink && | ||
PGOCtxProfLoweringPass::isContextualIRPGOEnabled(); | ||
const bool IsCtxProfUse = !UseCtxProfile.empty() && !PGOOpt && | ||
Phase == ThinOrFullLTOPhase::ThinLTOPreLink; | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just use the IsPreLink flag like you did above for IsCtxProfGen? What happens for regular LTO, which is the other case where IsPreLink could be true? If not supported there then consider adding an assert. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. But We could rename There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes I think it means essentially not post link. But I'm wondering why you check IsPreLink for IsCtxProfGen above and the more restrictive check here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The instrumentation phase can happen without thinlto. |
||
|
||
if (IsPGOInstrGen || IsPGOInstrUse || IsMemprofUse || IsCtxProfGen) | ||
if (IsPGOInstrGen || IsPGOInstrUse || IsMemprofUse || IsCtxProfGen || | ||
IsCtxProfUse) | ||
addPreInlinerPasses(MPM, Level, Phase); | ||
|
||
// Add all the requested passes for instrumentation PGO, if requested. | ||
|
@@ -1187,8 +1194,13 @@ PassBuilder::buildModuleSimplificationPipeline(OptimizationLevel Level, | |
/*IsCS=*/false, PGOOpt->AtomicCounterUpdate, | ||
PGOOpt->ProfileFile, PGOOpt->ProfileRemappingFile, | ||
PGOOpt->FS); | ||
} else if (IsCtxProfGen) { | ||
} else if (IsCtxProfGen || IsCtxProfUse) { | ||
MPM.addPass(PGOInstrumentationGen(false)); | ||
// In pre-link, we just want the instrumented IR. We use the contextual | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is the instrumentation removed in the post-LTO link after using it for matching? Maybe add that to the comment to clarify |
||
// profile in the post-thinlink phase. | ||
// The instrumentation will be removed in post-thinlink after IPO. | ||
if (IsCtxProfUse) | ||
return MPM; | ||
addPostPGOLoopRotation(MPM, Level); | ||
MPM.addPass(PGOCtxProfLoweringPass()); | ||
} | ||
|
@@ -1655,6 +1667,11 @@ PassBuilder::buildThinLTOPreLinkDefaultPipeline(OptimizationLevel Level) { | |
// can. | ||
MPM.addPass(buildModuleSimplificationPipeline( | ||
Level, ThinOrFullLTOPhase::ThinLTOPreLink)); | ||
// In pre-link, for ctx prof use, we stop here with an instrumented IR. We let | ||
// thinlto use the contextual info to perform imports; then use the contextual | ||
// profile in the post-thinlink phase. | ||
if (!UseCtxProfile.empty() && !PGOOpt) | ||
return MPM; | ||
|
||
// Run partial inlining pass to partially inline functions that have | ||
// large bodies. | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ | ||
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5 | ||
; There is no profile, but that's OK because the prelink does not care about | ||
; the content of the profile, just that we intend to use one. | ||
; There is no scenario currently of doing ctx profile use without thinlto. | ||
; | ||
; RUN: opt -passes='thinlto-pre-link<O2>' -use-ctx-profile=something_that_does_not_exist %s -S | FileCheck %s | ||
|
||
declare void @bar() | ||
|
||
define void @foo(i32 %a, ptr %fct) { | ||
; CHECK-LABEL: define void @foo( | ||
; CHECK-SAME: i32 [[A:%.*]], ptr [[FCT:%.*]]) local_unnamed_addr { | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: [[T:%.*]] = icmp eq i32 [[A]], 0 | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: br i1 [[T]], label %[[YES:.*]], label %[[NO:.*]] | ||
; CHECK: [[YES]]: | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @llvm.instrprof.increment(ptr @__profn_foo, i64 728453322856651412, i32 2, i32 1) | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: [[TMP1:%.*]] = ptrtoint ptr [[FCT]] to i64 | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @llvm.instrprof.value.profile(ptr @__profn_foo, i64 728453322856651412, i64 [[TMP1]], i32 0, i32 0) | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: call void [[FCT]](i32 0) | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[EXIT:.*]] | ||
; CHECK: [[NO]]: | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @llvm.instrprof.increment(ptr @__profn_foo, i64 728453322856651412, i32 2, i32 0) | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @bar() | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: br label %[[EXIT]] | ||
; CHECK: [[EXIT]]: | ||
; CHECK-NEXT: ret void | ||
; | ||
%t = icmp eq i32 %a, 0 | ||
br i1 %t, label %yes, label %no | ||
yes: | ||
call void %fct(i32 %a) | ||
br label %exit | ||
no: | ||
call void @bar() | ||
br label %exit | ||
exit: | ||
ret void | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rather than checking
!PGOOpt
here and further below, should it be an error to combine these options?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe, but I'm not seeing the usual error handling mechanism here; also, eventually I want to use PGOOpt (after some refactoring, because right now it's state is quite involved, see its ctor). While ctx_prof is in development, seems overkill to solve all these.