Re: Add new --param knobs for inliner

2019-01-07 Thread Jan Hubicka 
> On 1/5/19 11:58 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > @@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ want_inline_small_function_p (struct cgr
> >ipa_hints hints = estimate_edge_hints (e);
> >int big_speedup = -1; /* compute this lazily */
> >  
> > -  if (growth <= 0)
> > +  if (growth <= PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VALUE 
> > (PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SIZE)))
> 
> Extra PARAM_VALUE here.

This was fixed by the followup commit. Indeed a stupid bug.

Honza
> 
> -Pat
>

Re: Add new --param knobs for inliner

2019-01-07 Thread Pat Haugen 
On 1/5/19 11:58 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> @@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ want_inline_small_function_p (struct cgr
>ipa_hints hints = estimate_edge_hints (e);
>int big_speedup = -1; /* compute this lazily */
>  
> -  if (growth <= 0)
> +  if (growth <= PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_VALUE (PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SIZE)))

Extra PARAM_VALUE here.

-Pat

Re: Add new --param knobs for inliner

2019-01-07 Thread Jan Hubicka 
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> 
> > uinlined-* should be useful for architecutures with greater function
> > call overhead than modern x86 chips (which is good portion of them,
> > especially s390 as I learnt on Cauldron). It would be nice to benchmark
> > effect of those and tune default in config/* files. I think this is a
> > reasonable way to deal with architecutral differences without making
> > inliner hard to tune in long term.
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up!  This looks interesting, we'll have a look.

It may (and likely will) still be necessary to also increase
max-inline-insns-auto and perhaps -single but I think it is good to get
model realistic first. It will make inliner to prioritize better and
consider more inline candidates as important via the big speedup metric.

Honza
> 
> Bye,
> Ulrich
> 
> -- 
>   Dr. Ulrich Weigand
>   GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
>   ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com
>

Re: Add new --param knobs for inliner

2019-01-07 Thread Ulrich Weigand 
Jan Hubicka wrote:

> uinlined-* should be useful for architecutures with greater function
> call overhead than modern x86 chips (which is good portion of them,
> especially s390 as I learnt on Cauldron). It would be nice to benchmark
> effect of those and tune default in config/* files. I think this is a
> reasonable way to deal with architecutral differences without making
> inliner hard to tune in long term.

Thanks for the heads-up!  This looks interesting, we'll have a look.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
  ulrich.weig...@de.ibm.com