Summary: Currently, ICP checks the count against a fixed value to see if it is hot enough to be promoted. This does not work for SamplePGO because sampled count may be much smaller. This patch uses PSI to check if the count is hot enough to be promoted.
Reviewers: davidxl, tejohnson, eraman
Reviewed By: davidxl
Subscribers: sanjoy, llvm-commits, mehdi_amini
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36341
llvm-svn: 310416
Summary:
In SamplePGO, if the profile is collected from non-LTO binary, and used to drive ThinLTO, the indirect call promotion may fail because ThinLTO adjusts local function names to avoid conflicts. There are two places of where the mismatch can happen:
1. thin-link prepends SourceFileName to front of FuncName to build the GUID (GlobalValue::getGlobalIdentifier). Unlike instrumentation FDO, SamplePGO does not use the PGOFuncName scheme and therefore the indirect call target profile data contains a hash of the OriginalName.
2. backend compiler promotes some local functions to global and appends .llvm.{$ModuleHash} to the end of the FuncName to derive PromotedFunctionName
This patch tries at the best effort to find the GUID from the original local function name (in profile), and use that in ICP promotion, and in SamplePGO matching that happens in the backend after importing/inlining:
1. in thin-link, it builds the map from OriginalName to GUID so that when thin-link reads in indirect call target profile (represented by OriginalName), it knows which GUID to import.
2. in backend compiler, if sample profile reader cannot find a profile match for PromotedFunctionName, it will try to find if there is a match for OriginalFunctionName.
3. in backend compiler, we build symbol table entry for OriginalFunctionName and pointer to the same symbol of PromotedFunctionName, so that ICP can find the correct target to promote.
Reviewers: mehdi_amini, tejohnson
Reviewed By: tejohnson
Subscribers: llvm-commits, Prazek
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D30754
llvm-svn: 297757
Dehao Chen