maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGen/pseudo-probe-emit.c

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

19 lines
735 B
C
Raw Normal View History

[CSSPGO] Enable pseudo probe instrumentation in O0 mode. Pseudo probe instrumentation was missing from O0 build. It is needed in cases where some source files are built in O0 while the others are built in optimize mode. Reviewed By: wenlei, wlei, wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109531
2021-09-10 02:41:39 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -O0 -fno-legacy-pass-manager -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling -debug-info-kind=limited -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
Avoid conflicts between debug-info and pseudo-probe profiling After D93264, using both -fdebug-info-for-profiling and -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling will cause the compiler to crash. Diagnose these conflicting options in the driver. Also, the existing CodeGen test was using the driver when it should be running cc1. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D96354
2021-02-10 06:41:52 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -O2 -fno-legacy-pass-manager -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling -debug-info-kind=limited -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
// Check the generation of pseudoprobe intrinsic call
Use functions with prototypes when appropriate; NFC A significant number of our tests in C accidentally use functions without prototypes. This patch converts the function signatures to have a prototype for the situations where the test is not specific to K&R C declarations. e.g., void func(); becomes void func(void); This is the eleventh batch of tests being updated (there are a significant number of other tests left to be updated).
2022-02-16 05:06:01 +08:00
void bar(void);
void go(void);
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
void foo(int x) {
[CSSPGO] Introducing distribution factor for pseudo probe. Sample re-annotation is required in LTO time to achieve a reasonable post-inline profile quality. However, we have seen that such LTO-time re-annotation degrades profile quality. This is mainly caused by preLTO code duplication that is done by passes such as loop unrolling, jump threading, indirect call promotion etc, where samples corresponding to a source location are aggregated multiple times due to the duplicates. In this change we are introducing a concept of distribution factor for pseudo probes so that samples can be distributed for duplicated probes scaled by a factor. We hope that optimizations duplicating code well-maintain the branch frequency information (BFI) based on which probe distribution factors are calculated. Distribution factors are updated at the end of preLTO pipeline to reflect an estimated portion of the real execution count. This change also introduces a pseudo probe verifier that can be run after each IR passes to detect duplicated pseudo probes. A saturated distribution factor stands for 1.0. A pesudo probe will carry a factor with the value ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. A 64-bit integral distribution factor field that represents [0.0, 1.0] is associated to each block probe. Unfortunately this cannot be done for callsite probes due to the size limitation of a 32-bit Dwarf discriminator. A 7-bit distribution factor is used instead. Changes are also needed to the sample profile inliner to deal with prorated callsite counts. Call sites duplicated by PreLTO passes, when later on inlined in LTO time, should have the callees’s probe prorated based on the Prelink-computed distribution factors. The distribution factors should also be taken into account when computing hotness for inline candidates. Also, Indirect call promotion results in multiple callisites. The original samples should be distributed across them. This is fixed by adjusting the callisites' distribution factors. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93264
2020-12-12 04:18:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 [[#GUID:]], i64 1, i32 0, i64 -1)
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
if (x == 0)
[CSSPGO] Introducing distribution factor for pseudo probe. Sample re-annotation is required in LTO time to achieve a reasonable post-inline profile quality. However, we have seen that such LTO-time re-annotation degrades profile quality. This is mainly caused by preLTO code duplication that is done by passes such as loop unrolling, jump threading, indirect call promotion etc, where samples corresponding to a source location are aggregated multiple times due to the duplicates. In this change we are introducing a concept of distribution factor for pseudo probes so that samples can be distributed for duplicated probes scaled by a factor. We hope that optimizations duplicating code well-maintain the branch frequency information (BFI) based on which probe distribution factors are calculated. Distribution factors are updated at the end of preLTO pipeline to reflect an estimated portion of the real execution count. This change also introduces a pseudo probe verifier that can be run after each IR passes to detect duplicated pseudo probes. A saturated distribution factor stands for 1.0. A pesudo probe will carry a factor with the value ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. A 64-bit integral distribution factor field that represents [0.0, 1.0] is associated to each block probe. Unfortunately this cannot be done for callsite probes due to the size limitation of a 32-bit Dwarf discriminator. A 7-bit distribution factor is used instead. Changes are also needed to the sample profile inliner to deal with prorated callsite counts. Call sites duplicated by PreLTO passes, when later on inlined in LTO time, should have the callees’s probe prorated based on the Prelink-computed distribution factors. The distribution factors should also be taken into account when computing hotness for inline candidates. Also, Indirect call promotion results in multiple callisites. The original samples should be distributed across them. This is fixed by adjusting the callisites' distribution factors. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93264
2020-12-12 04:18:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 [[#GUID]], i64 2, i32 0, i64 -1)
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
bar();
else
[CSSPGO] Introducing distribution factor for pseudo probe. Sample re-annotation is required in LTO time to achieve a reasonable post-inline profile quality. However, we have seen that such LTO-time re-annotation degrades profile quality. This is mainly caused by preLTO code duplication that is done by passes such as loop unrolling, jump threading, indirect call promotion etc, where samples corresponding to a source location are aggregated multiple times due to the duplicates. In this change we are introducing a concept of distribution factor for pseudo probes so that samples can be distributed for duplicated probes scaled by a factor. We hope that optimizations duplicating code well-maintain the branch frequency information (BFI) based on which probe distribution factors are calculated. Distribution factors are updated at the end of preLTO pipeline to reflect an estimated portion of the real execution count. This change also introduces a pseudo probe verifier that can be run after each IR passes to detect duplicated pseudo probes. A saturated distribution factor stands for 1.0. A pesudo probe will carry a factor with the value ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. A 64-bit integral distribution factor field that represents [0.0, 1.0] is associated to each block probe. Unfortunately this cannot be done for callsite probes due to the size limitation of a 32-bit Dwarf discriminator. A 7-bit distribution factor is used instead. Changes are also needed to the sample profile inliner to deal with prorated callsite counts. Call sites duplicated by PreLTO passes, when later on inlined in LTO time, should have the callees’s probe prorated based on the Prelink-computed distribution factors. The distribution factors should also be taken into account when computing hotness for inline candidates. Also, Indirect call promotion results in multiple callisites. The original samples should be distributed across them. This is fixed by adjusting the callisites' distribution factors. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93264
2020-12-12 04:18:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 [[#GUID]], i64 3, i32 0, i64 -1)
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
go();
[CSSPGO] Introducing distribution factor for pseudo probe. Sample re-annotation is required in LTO time to achieve a reasonable post-inline profile quality. However, we have seen that such LTO-time re-annotation degrades profile quality. This is mainly caused by preLTO code duplication that is done by passes such as loop unrolling, jump threading, indirect call promotion etc, where samples corresponding to a source location are aggregated multiple times due to the duplicates. In this change we are introducing a concept of distribution factor for pseudo probes so that samples can be distributed for duplicated probes scaled by a factor. We hope that optimizations duplicating code well-maintain the branch frequency information (BFI) based on which probe distribution factors are calculated. Distribution factors are updated at the end of preLTO pipeline to reflect an estimated portion of the real execution count. This change also introduces a pseudo probe verifier that can be run after each IR passes to detect duplicated pseudo probes. A saturated distribution factor stands for 1.0. A pesudo probe will carry a factor with the value ranged from 0.0 to 1.0. A 64-bit integral distribution factor field that represents [0.0, 1.0] is associated to each block probe. Unfortunately this cannot be done for callsite probes due to the size limitation of a 32-bit Dwarf discriminator. A 7-bit distribution factor is used instead. Changes are also needed to the sample profile inliner to deal with prorated callsite counts. Call sites duplicated by PreLTO passes, when later on inlined in LTO time, should have the callees’s probe prorated based on the Prelink-computed distribution factors. The distribution factors should also be taken into account when computing hotness for inline candidates. Also, Indirect call promotion results in multiple callisites. The original samples should be distributed across them. This is fixed by adjusting the callisites' distribution factors. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93264
2020-12-12 04:18:31 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @llvm.pseudoprobe(i64 [[#GUID]], i64 4, i32 0, i64 -1)
[CSSPGO] A Clang switch -fpseudo-probe-for-profiling for pseudo-probe instrumentation. This change introduces a new clang switch `-fpseudo-probe-for-profiling` to enable AutoFDO with pseudo instrumentation. Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D86193 for the whole story. One implication from pseudo-probe instrumentation is that the profile is now sensitive to CFG changes. We perform the pseudo instrumentation very early in the pre-LTO pipeline, before any CFG transformation. This ensures that the CFG instrumented and annotated is stable and optimization-resilient. The early instrumentation also allows the inliner to duplicate probes for inlined instances. When a probe along with the other instructions of a callee function are inlined into its caller function, the GUID of the callee function goes with the probe. This allows samples collected on inlined probes to be reported for the original callee function. Reviewed By: wmi Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D86502
2020-08-19 07:28:47 +08:00
}