From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-436445-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18640 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2016 12:06:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 18627 invoked by uid 89); 21 Sep 2016 12:06:16 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*UA:Coremail, H*x:Coremail, Hx-languages-length:1015, H*F:D*cn
X-HELO: pku.edu.cn
Received: from mx13.pku.edu.cn (HELO pku.edu.cn) (162.105.129.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:06:15 +0000
Received: by ajax-webmail-mailfront01 (Coremail) ; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:06:03 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:44:00 -0000
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: "Yuan, Pengfei" <ypf@pku.edu.cn>
To: "Richard Biener" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jan Hubicka" <hubicka@ucw.cz>, "GCC Patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, 5.x/6.x/7.x] Be more conservative in early inliner if FDO is enabled
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc1bnnVm1a5JOH2ww9hq-YSdUe698H_++qmdrJttfWYeFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <58f49a76.4c20.15712b20e40.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn> <CAFiYyc3MwD3B+B4rpgRzVejVMEuCQtUV9m2fBM92LPegJU+6mg@mail.gmail.com> <392727ce.b9c7.1572b385ece.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn> <CAFiYyc2Yb6Gp+4dn1UETmcLte9OdbAUBdGntE3LD3V_0jp9B_Q@mail.gmail.com> <339617a6.8f06.1573166cbaf.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn> <20160916072531.GB69806@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <355e6f53.95d3.1573230b35b.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn> <CAFiYyc3nJBOgpC6z77QTs+fzAevwgHGVDykV=Y2Eaqqntc1jEA@mail.gmail.com> <20160916091417.GA29974@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <6ad18072.d732.15732c834ea.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn> <20160916120037.GB3781@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <CAFiYyc1QJmE_bDK-48RzxWEk1jknOfVCbqY93PKaLyOGPEUjDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1bnnVm1a5JOH2ww9hq-YSdUe698H_++qmdrJttfWYeFA@mail.gmail.com>
X-SendMailWithSms: false
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3cf014ea.1b70.1574ca376b7.Coremail.ypf@pku.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: zh_CN
X-CM-TRANSID:x4FpogDHJoisd+JX4fUwAA--.6540W
X-CM-SenderInfo: yrsqiiarrtilo6sn3hxhgxhubq/1tbiAgAFD1Py7a3jhAAAsO
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw	CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI	daVFxhVjvjDU=
X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg01408.txt.bz2

> > Btw, It occurs to me that then win in code-size might be purely due to the
> > smaller base value for the TU size we use to compute the maximum unit
> > growth with ... any idea how to improve it on this side?  Say, computing
> > the TU size before early optimization (uh, probably not ...)
> >
> > That said, the inliner always completely fills its budged, that is, increase
> > the unit by max-unit-growth?
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that rather than limiting early inlining we should
> maybe decrease inline-unit-growth when FDO is in effect?  Because we
> can better control where the inlining goes.  If there is over 8% reduction
> in size benchmarking (unpatched) compiler on Firefox with FDO and
> --param inline-unit-growth=12 might show if the results are the same.

FYI, with --param inline-unit-growth=12 --param early-inlining-insns=14,
the code size reduction is only 1.1%.

Yuan, Pengfei

> Richard.
> 
> > Richard.