From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"hernandez, aldy" <aldyh@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add param for bb limit to invoke fast_vrp.
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 15:15:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc1tbFLi3cD1zi5D2SdEc3zsRcKxU60=cCSwjRf6UjL7zg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1bb04945-d13b-4805-b9ed-0be4a5c773fc@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 3:02 PM Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> This patch adds
>
> --param=vrp-block-limit=N
>
> When the basic block counter for a function exceeded 'N' , VRP is
> invoked with the new fast_vrp algorithm instead. This algorithm uses a
> lot less memory and processing power, although it does get a few less
> things.
>
> Primary motivation is cases like
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114855 in which the 3 VRP
> passes consume about 600 seconds of the compile time, and a lot of
> memory. With fast_vrp, it spends less than 10 seconds total in the
> 3 passes of VRP. This test case has about 400,000 basic blocks.
>
> The default for N in this patch is 150,000, arbitrarily chosen.
>
> This bootstraps, (and I bootstrapped it with --param=vrp-block-limit=0
> as well) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, with no regressions.
>
> What do you think, OK for trunk?
+ if (last_basic_block_for_fn (fun) > param_vrp_block_limit ||
+ &data == &pass_data_fast_vrp)
|| goes to the next line.
Btw, we have -Wdisabled-optimization for these cases which should
say sth like "function has excess of %d number of basic blocks
(--param vrp-block-limit=%d), using fast VRP algorithm"
or so in this case.
As I wrote in the PR the priority should be -O1 compile-time
performance and memory use.
Richard.
> Andrew
>
> PS sorry,. it doesn't help the threader in that PR :-(
It's probably one of the known bottlenecks there - IIRC the path range
queries make O(n^2) work. I can look at this at some point as I've
dealt with the slowness of this pass in the past.
There is param_max_jump_thread_paths that should limit searching
but there is IIRC no way to limit the work path ranger actually does
when resolving the query.
Richard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-22 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-21 13:02 Andrew MacLeod
2024-06-22 13:15 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2024-06-25 2:19 ` Andrew MacLeod
2024-06-25 2:35 ` Andrew Pinski
2024-06-25 4:27 ` Andrew Pinski
2024-06-25 19:51 ` [COMMITTED] " Andrew MacLeod
2024-06-25 21:32 ` [PATCH] " David Malcolm
2024-06-25 13:23 ` Andrew MacLeod
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='CAFiYyc1tbFLi3cD1zi5D2SdEc3zsRcKxU60=cCSwjRf6UjL7zg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=aldyh@redhat.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).