On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote:
> I have done some SPEC testing evaluating the performance impact of
> your patch. They look very positive. LIPO got helped even more than
> FDO (I only did SPEC2k LIPO testing).
Did you also check impact on compile-time and code-size?
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> 1. SPEC06 (C/C++) with FDO
>
> before after Improvement
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 400.perlbench 27.4 28.2 2.89% <---
> 401.bzip2 18.1 18.2 0.28%
> 403.gcc 25.5 26.3 3.26% <---
> 429.mcf 26.0 26.0 0.08%
> 445.gobmk 22.6 23.2 2.30% <----
> 456.hmmer 20.1 19.8 -1.25%
> 458.sjeng 23.6 23.6 -0.42%
> 462.libquantum 57.1 56.9 -0.40%
> 464.h264ref 34.4 34.1 -0.70%
> 471.omnetpp 18.8 18.9 0.53%
> 473.astar 16.6 17.0 2.53% <---
> 483.xalancbmk 27.4 28.5 3.79% <---
> 999.specrand 94.9 98.4 3.71% <---
> 450.soplex 34.5 33.8 -2.00%
> 447.dealII 32.0 31.9 -0.34%
> 453.povray 25.9 28.3 9.02% <---
> 482.sphinx3 32.6 31.4 -3.50%
>
>
> 2. SPEC2k FDO
>
> before after
> Improvement
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 164.gzip 1308 1372 4.95%
> 175.vpr 1723 1805 4.76%
> 176.gcc 2407 2504 4.01%
> 181.mcf 1724 1748 1.38%
> 186.crafty 2292 2349 2.47%
> 197.parser 1457 1601 9.88%
> 252.eon 2557 2588 1.22%
> 253.perlbmk 2479 2574 3.83%
> 254.gap 1996 2013 0.84%
> 255.vortex 2683 2798 4.31%
> 256.bzip2 1833 1829 -0.26%
> 300.twolf 2321 2359 1.63%
> 188.ammp 771 766 -0.72%
> 183.equake 1071 1071 0.05%
> 179.art 2954 2979 0.85%
>
>
> 3. SPEC2k LIPO:
>
> before after
> Improvement
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 164.gzip 1311 1405 7.18%
> 175.vpr 1732 1772 2.35%
> 176.gcc 2462 2559 3.96%
> 181.mcf 1723 1731 0.50%
> 186.crafty 2552 2662 4.33%
> 197.parser 1468 1671 13.78%
> 252.eon 2690 3000 11.49%
> 253.perlbmk 2545 2611 2.60%
> 254.gap 2097 2152 2.60%
> 255.vortex 2949 3719 26.11%
> 256.bzip2 1864 1935 3.78%
> 300.twolf 2371 2471 4.22%
> 188.ammp 771 774 0.41%
> 183.equake 1081 1081 -0.04%
> 179.art 2878 2884 0.24%
>
>
> 4. SPEC2k LIPO vs FDO before the change:
>
> FDO(before) LIPO(before) Improvement
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 164.gzip 1308 1311 0.22%
> 175.vpr 1723 1732 0.53%
> 176.gcc 2407 2462 2.27%
> 181.mcf 1724 1723 -0.07%
> 186.crafty 2292 2552 11.32%
> 197.parser 1457 1468 0.81%
> 252.eon 2557 2690 5.20%
> 253.perlbmk 2479 2545 2.66%
> 254.gap 1996 2097 5.04%
> 255.vortex 2683 2949 9.91%
> 256.bzip2 1833 1864 1.67%
> 300.twolf 2321 2371 2.15%
> 188.ammp 771 771 -0.04%
> 183.equake 1071 1081 1.02%
> 179.art 2954 2878 -2.59%
>
>
>
> 5. SPEC2k LIPO vs FDO after the change:
> FDO(after) LIPO(after) Improvement
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 164.gzip 1372 1405 2.36%
> 175.vpr 1805 1772 -1.79%
> 176.gcc 2504 2559 2.21%
> 181.mcf 1748 1731 -0.94%
> 186.crafty 2349 2662 13.35%
> 197.parser 1601 1671 4.38%
> 252.eon 2588 3000 15.88%
> 253.perlbmk 2574 2611 1.44%
> 254.gap 2013 2152 6.87%
> 255.vortex 2798 3719 32.88%
> 256.bzip2 1829 1935 5.79%
> 300.twolf 2359 2471 4.75%
> 188.ammp 766 774 1.10%
> 183.equake 1071 1081 0.92%
> 179.art 2979 2884 -3.18%
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Mark Heffernan <meh...@google.com> wrote:
>> Verified identical binaries created and submitted.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Ok with that change to google/main with some retesting.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Mark Heffernan <meh...@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The new change won't help those. Your original place will be ok if you
>>>>> test profile_arcs and branch_probability flags.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes. I see your point now. Reverted to the original change with
>>>> condition profile_arc_flag and flag_branch_probabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Mark Heffernan <meh...@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To make consistent inline decisions between profile-gen and
>>>>>>> profile-use, probably better to check these two:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> flag_profile_arcs and flag_branch_probabilities. -fprofile-use
>>>>>>> enables profile-arcs, and value profiling is enabled only when
>>>>>>> edge/branch profiling is enabled (so no need to be checked).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I changed the location where these parameters are set to someplace more
>>>>>> appropriate (to where the flags are set when profile gen/use is
>>>>>> indicated).
>>>>>> Verified identical binaries are generated.
>>>>>> OK as updated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>> 2011-05-18 Mark Heffernan <meh...@google.com>
>>>>>> * opts.c (set_profile_parameters): New function.
>>>>>> Index: opts.c
>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>> --- opts.c (revision 173666)
>>>>>> +++ opts.c (working copy)
>>>>>> @@ -1209,6 +1209,25 @@ print_specific_help (unsigned int includ
>>>>>> opts->x_help_columns, opts, lang_mask);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* Set parameters to more appropriate values when profile information
>>>>>> + is available. */
>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>> +set_profile_parameters (struct gcc_options *opts,
>>>>>> + struct gcc_options *opts_set)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + /* With accurate profile information, inlining is much more
>>>>>> + selective and makes better decisions, so increase the
>>>>>> + inlining function size limits. */
>>>>>> + maybe_set_param_value
>>>>>> + (PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE, 1000,
>>>>>> + opts->x_param_values, opts_set->x_param_values);
>>>>>> + maybe_set_param_value
>>>>>> + (PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO, 1000,
>>>>>> + opts->x_param_values, opts_set->x_param_values);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /* Handle target- and language-independent options. Return zero to
>>>>>> generate an "unknown option" message. Only options that need
>>>>>> extra handling need to be listed here; if you simply want
>>>>>> @@ -1560,6 +1579,7 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>>>>> opts->x_flag_unswitch_loops = value;
>>>>>> if (!opts_set->x_flag_gcse_after_reload)
>>>>>> opts->x_flag_gcse_after_reload = value;
>>>>>> + set_profile_parameters (opts, opts_set);
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> case OPT_fprofile_generate_:
>>>>>> @@ -1580,6 +1600,7 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>>>>> is done. */
>>>>>> if (!opts_set->x_flag_ipa_reference && in_lto_p)
>>>>>> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>>>>>> + set_profile_parameters (opts, opts_set);
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> case OPT_fshow_column:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
