From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
To: Rong Xu <xur@google.com>
Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com>,
Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
reply@codereview.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: atomic update of profile counters (issue7000044)
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+=Sn1kK-Ld-K7YBAy1rVTrkBaXhduRH6zE4LA379QTgiY-1wA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF1bQ=QE0UPcWzG8U150E8cMK4WrcXwiNBgdeDgZPhV5KUx9wA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a new patch. The only difference is to declare
> __atomic_fetch_add as weak. This is
> needed for targets without sync/atomic builtin support. The patch
> contains a call to the builtin regardless of the new options
> -fprofile-gen-atomic. This results in a unsat in these targets even
> for regular profile-gen built.
>
> With this new patch, if the user uses -fprofile-gen-atomic in these
> target, the generated code will seg fault.
>
> We think a better solution is to emit the builtin call only in these
> targets with the support, and give warning for non-supported target.
> But I did not find any target hook for this. Does anyone know how to
> do this?
Why not use libatomic for those targets?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rong
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> It would be great if this can make into gcc4.8. The patch has close to
>> 0 impact on code stability.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Honza,
>>>
>>> In the other thread of discussion (similar patch in google-4_7
>>> branch), you said you were thinking if to let this patch into trunk in
>>> stage 3. Can you give some update?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Rong
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch adds support of atomic update of profiles counters. The goal is to improve
>>>>>> the poor counter values for highly thread programs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The atomic update is under a new option -fprofile-gen-atomic=<N>
>>>>>> N=0: default, no atomic update
>>>>>> N=1: atomic update edge counters.
>>>>>> N=2: atomic update some of value profile counters (currently indirect-call and one value profile).
>>>>>> N=3: both edge counter and the above value profile counters.
>>>>>> Other value: fall back to the default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is a simple porting of the version in google-4_7 branch. It uses __atomic_fetch_add
>>>>>> based on Andrew Pinski's suggestion. Note I did not apply to all the value profiles as
>>>>>> the indirect-call profile is the most relevant one here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Test with bootstrap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments and suggestions are welcomed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rong
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012-12-20 Rong Xu <xur@google.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * libgcc/libgcov.c (__gcov_one_value_profiler_body_atomic): New
>>>>>> function. Atomic update profile counters.
>>>>>> (__gcov_one_value_profiler_atomic): Ditto.
>>>>>> (__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_atomic): Ditto.
>>>>>> * gcc/gcov-io.h: Macros for atomic update.
>>>>>> * gcc/common.opt: New option.
>>>>>> * gcc/tree-profile.c (gimple_init_edge_profiler): Atomic
>>>>>> update profile counters.
>>>>>> (gimple_gen_edge_profiler): Ditto.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch looks resonable. Eventually we probably should provide rest of the value counters
>>>>> in thread safe manner. What happens on targets not having atomic operations?
>>>>
>>>> From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fsync-Builtins.html#_005f_005fsync-Builtins,
>>>> it says:
>>>> "If a particular operation cannot be implemented on the target
>>>> processor, a warning is generated and a call an external function is
>>>> generated. "
>>>>
>>>> So I think there will be a warning and eventually a link error of unsat.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -Rong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-03 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-21 6:45 Rong Xu
2012-12-21 9:25 ` Jan Hubicka
2012-12-21 18:38 ` Rong Xu
2012-12-28 19:33 ` Rong Xu
2012-12-28 19:35 ` Xinliang David Li
2013-01-03 1:16 ` Rong Xu
2013-01-03 1:25 ` Andrew Pinski [this message]
2013-01-03 1:29 ` Rong Xu
2013-01-03 1:31 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-01-03 9:05 ` Richard Biener
2013-01-04 0:42 ` Rong Xu
2013-01-07 20:36 ` Richard Henderson
2013-01-07 20:56 ` Rong Xu
2013-11-20 7:03 ` Rong Xu
2013-11-20 7:20 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-11-20 19:59 ` Rong Xu
2013-11-20 20:08 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-11-20 20:31 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-11-20 23:18 ` Joseph S. Myers
2013-11-21 0:07 ` Rong Xu
2013-11-21 0:14 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-11-21 1:24 ` Rong Xu
2014-05-26 6:01 ` Jan Hubicka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+=Sn1kK-Ld-K7YBAy1rVTrkBaXhduRH6zE4LA379QTgiY-1wA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pinskia@gmail.com \
--cc=davidxl@google.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=reply@codereview.appspotmail.com \
--cc=xur@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).