On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
Not yet for SPEC -- will pick some benchmarks and take a look.
David
>
>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
