public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native
@ 2024-01-28 21:31 jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 8:27 ` [Bug gcov-profile/113646] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-28 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
Bug ID: 113646
Summary: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at
-Ofast -march=native
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks: 26163
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux, aarch64-linux
Target: x86_64-linux, aarch64-linux
Using profile guided optimization is very detrimental when compiling SPEC 2017
FPrate benchmark 538.imagick_r at -Ofast -march=native (with or without LTO) on
all machines where I have tried.
On Zen4, using PGO results in a 68% slower than not doing that without LTO and
65% with LTO:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=970.507.0&plot.1=966.507.0&plot.2=959.507.0&plot.3=958.507.0&
On Zen3, using PGO slows the binary down by 22% when not using LTO and by 30%
with LTO:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=471.507.0&plot.1=473.507.0&plot.2=475.507.0&plot.3=477.507.0&
On Zen2, PGO regresses by 16% without LTO and by 28% with it:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=295.507.0&plot.1=293.507.0&plot.2=287.507.0&plot.3=286.507.0&
On our Altra CPU, the slowdowns are 26% and 45%:
https://lnt.opensuse.org/db_default/v4/SPEC/graph?plot.0=584.507.0&plot.1=583.507.0&plot.2=587.507.0&plot.3=589.507.0&
On an Intel CascadeLake machine, they are 24% and 41%. (Our LNT Intel machine
is temporarily offline, unfortunately).
It is of course possible that the training workload does not match the
reference one very well. However, this was not a problem in the past
(apparently the problem is that our non-PGO results improved but our PGO ones
did not). Also, other compilers such as LLVM achieve better run-times with PGO
than without.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
[Bug 26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/113646] PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native
2024-01-28 21:31 [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-29 8:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 15:33 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-29 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Did you try with -fprofile-partial-training (is that default on? it probably
should ...). Can you please try training with the rate data instead of train
to rule out a mismatch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/113646] PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native
2024-01-28 21:31 [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 8:27 ` [Bug gcov-profile/113646] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-29 15:33 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-01-31 14:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 11:25 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2024-01-29 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> Did you try with -fprofile-partial-training (is that default on? it probably
> should ...). Can you please try training with the rate data instead of train
It is not on by default - the problem of partial training is that it
mostly nullifies any code size benefits from profile-use and that is
relatively noticebale aspect of it in real-world situations (like
for GCC itself or Firefox the overall size of binary matters).
I need to work on this more, but now we have two-state optimize_size
predicates and with level 1 we can turn off those -Os optimizations that
make large tradeoffs of performance for size optimization.
Honza
> to rule out a mismatch?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/113646] PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native
2024-01-28 21:31 [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 8:27 ` [Bug gcov-profile/113646] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 15:33 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
@ 2024-01-31 14:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 11:25 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-31 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Did you try with -fprofile-partial-training (is that default on? it
> probably should ...). Can you please try training with the rate data
> instead of train
> to rule out a mismatch?
With -fprofile-partial-training the znver4 LTO vs LTOPGO regression (on a newer
master) goes down from 66% to 54%.
So far I did not find a way to easily train with the reference run (when I add
"train_with = refrate" to the config, I always get "ERROR: The workload
specified by train_with MUST be a training workload!")
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug gcov-profile/113646] PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native
2024-01-28 21:31 [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-31 14:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-01 11:25 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at ucw dot cz @ 2024-02-01 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113646
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
>
> With -fprofile-partial-training the znver4 LTO vs LTOPGO regression (on a newer
> master) goes down from 66% to 54%.
>
> So far I did not find a way to easily train with the reference run (when I add
> "train_with = refrate" to the config, I always get "ERROR: The workload
> specified by train_with MUST be a training workload!")
I do that with a crude hack of simply rewriting training data files with
reference versions in SPEC directly. I believe that here problem must
be that with PGO we confuse vectorizer somehow.
I did not know there is train_with option. Perhaps hacking the spec
driver to not output error is easy enough
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-02-01 11:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-01-28 21:31 [Bug gcov-profile/113646] New: PGO hurts run-time of 538.imagick_r as much as 68% at -Ofast -march=native jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 8:27 ` [Bug gcov-profile/113646] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-29 15:33 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2024-01-31 14:45 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-01 11:25 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).