[Bug bootstrap/63432] [5 Regression] profiledbootstrap failure with bootstrap-lto

["tejohnson at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432

--- Comment #14 from Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google dot com> ---
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks to H.J. for the test case, I have reproduced the issue. It
> exposed two separate problems. Cc'ing Honza and Jeff for input on the
> profile count and jump threading issues, respectively.
>
> The first is that we are calling my new freqs_to_counts_path in cases
> where the functions do have non-zero profile counts. I am invoking
> this when either the profile status is != PROFILE_READ, or when the
> entry block count is 0. The latter is the case where the read in
> profile had zero counts for the function, so we kept the guessed
> frequencies (see counts_to_freqs in predict.c). In some cases I am
> finding the the profile count on the entry block is 0, but the rest of
> the blocks (bb 2 and descendants) have non-zero profile counts. I
> thought the way to check for this case was to look at the entry
> block's count, and in fact that is what we seem to do in other places.
> I could also check the entry block successor counts, or I could simply
> check the blocks along the path (to see if they all have 0 counts but
> non-0 frequencies). I don't want to check all bbs in the function for
> every path. Honza, is there a good way to detect this case (function
> is marked PROFILE_READ but has all-0 bb counts and we kept the
> estimated frequencies)?
>
> Even when I skip freqs_to_counts_path in this case, we still get the
> insane edge probability. I dumped out some more verbose info while
> jump threading, and I am seeing a jump threading path that I don't
> understand. Since it violates my assumptions, the new profile update
> computations go haywire. Here is the path that we are attempting to
> thread:
>
> (119, 150) incoming edge;  (150, 155) joiner;  (13, 15) normal;
>
> Notice that the normal edge is not connected to the rest of the path.
> This path appears to be constructed during jump threading, as block
> 155 was created by an earlier threading opportunity. In fact, the
> earlier threadings that created bb 155 removed all predecessors of bb
> 13. We originally had
>
> bb 150 with successors bb 12 and bb 13
> bb 12 with successor bb 13.
>
> Then we do:
>   Threaded jump 12 --> 13 to 155
>   Threaded jump 150 --> 13 to 155
> and bb 13 has no more predecessors. So I'm not sure what it means to
> have a jump threading path through 150 and 13?
>
> Jeff, is the above type of jump threading path expected and
> reasonable? If so, I need to redo some of the profile update code to
> handle it better.

I see what happened - 155 is a duplicate of 13 from the earlier
threading. So the path that was originally:

(119, 150) incoming edge;  (150, 13) joiner;  (13, 15) normal;

became

(119, 150) incoming edge;  (150, 155) joiner;  (13, 15) normal;

This happened naturally when we redirected the incoming edge 150->13
to 155 on the earlier jump threading. During the same threading we
created duplicate bb 154 of bb 15, and redirect bb 155 to bb 154. This
redirection does not affect the original 13->15 edge, and thus 13->15
remains on the above path. The 155->154 edge should be the new edge in
the path instead of 13->15. But the edges recorded in other paths are
not explicitly updated, so the normal edge was left alone.

This works out ok from a correctness standpoint, since bb 13 still
exists and has the same outgoing edges as it did before, which were
duplicated onto bb 154. However, those outgoing edges have had their
profile counts updated and it no longer works out to use those profile
counts to update the counts along this new threading path. We really
want to look at 155->154 for the profile to update.

Probably we should be updating remaining jump threading paths when we
perform jump threading. I need to think about the best way to do that.

Teresa

>
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson@google.com> wrote:
>> Feel free to email it to me at tejohnson@google.com.
>> Teresa
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
>> <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63432
>>>
>>> --- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
>>> (In reply to Teresa Johnson from comment #10)
>>>>
>>>> This points to a bigger problem, since esucc->count should be <=
>>>> bb->count. Can you attach the input files and command line and I will
>>>> take a closer look?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since the compressed input file is about 3MB, I can't upload it here.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You are receiving this mail because:
>>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413
>
>
>
> --
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson@google.com | 408-460-2413