Some code size and timing number (profile use compile) are collected. Summary:
Compile time for profile-use compilation increase for all cases --
this is probably not a big issue as this is for peak performance.
It is more interesting to look at the size numbers. C++ program size
actually decrease in many cases (which match the results from our
internal benchmarks). For some benchmark such as povray, it reduce
quite a bit (either due to more DFE, or better cleanups -- have not
looked at details). For C programs, especially smaller ones, the
size increase (some significantly).
David
1. xalancbmk:
Size (total size of object files, not text size which is correlated)
Before: 17,801,488
After : 17,252,032
Change: -3%
Time (make all with -j1)
Before: 248 seconds
After : 286 seconds
Change: 15%
2. povray:
Size
Before: 2,855,690
After: 2,113,754
Change: -25%
Time:
Before: 36.5s
After: 43.2 s
Change: +18%
3. eon
Size
Before: 3,988,460
After : 4,099,108
Change: +2.8%
Time
Before: 53.1s
After: 56.8s
Change: +6.9%
4. gcc
Size
Before: 14,162,908
After: 15,089,106
Change: +6.5%
Time
Before: 57.3s
After: 60.7s
Change: +5.9%
5. Parser:
Size
Before: 1,175,509
After: 1,568,135
Change: +33.4%
Time
Before: 5.3s
After: 12.9s
Change: +143%
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
