From: Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ipa-cp: Fix various issues in update_specialized_profile (PR 107925)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 15:42:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ri6o7pncc66.fsf@suse.cz> (raw)
Hi,
the patch below fixes various issues in function
update_specialized_profile. The main is removal of the assert which
is bogus in the case of recursive cloning. The division of
unexplained counts is guesswork, which then leads to updates of counts
of recursive edges, which then can be redirected to the new clone and
their count subtracted from the count and there simply may not be
enough left in the count of the original node - especially when we
clone a lot because of using --param ipa-cp-eval-threshold=1.
The other issue was omission to drop the count of the original node to
ipa count. And when calculating the remainder, we should use
lenient_count_portion_handling to account for partial train runs.
Finally, the patch adds dumping of the original count which I think
is useful.
Profiled-LTO-bootstrapped on its own and also normally bootstrapped and
tested together with the subsequent patch on an x86_64-linux. OK for
master and the 12 branch - assuming it is also affected?
Thanks,
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2023-02-17 Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
PR ipa/107925
* ipa-cp.cc (update_specialized_profile): Drop orig_node_count to
ipa count, remove assert, lenient_count_portion_handling, dump
also orig_node_count.
---
gcc/ipa-cp.cc | 10 ++++++----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-cp.cc b/gcc/ipa-cp.cc
index 4b8dedc0c51..5a6b41cf2d6 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-cp.cc
+++ b/gcc/ipa-cp.cc
@@ -5093,22 +5093,24 @@ update_specialized_profile (struct cgraph_node *new_node,
profile_count redirected_sum)
{
struct cgraph_edge *cs;
- profile_count new_node_count, orig_node_count = orig_node->count;
+ profile_count new_node_count, orig_node_count = orig_node->count.ipa ();
if (dump_file)
{
fprintf (dump_file, " the sum of counts of redirected edges is ");
redirected_sum.dump (dump_file);
+ fprintf (dump_file, "\n old ipa count of the original node is ");
+ orig_node_count.dump (dump_file);
fprintf (dump_file, "\n");
}
if (!(orig_node_count > profile_count::zero ()))
return;
- gcc_assert (orig_node_count >= redirected_sum);
-
new_node_count = new_node->count;
new_node->count += redirected_sum;
- orig_node->count -= redirected_sum;
+ orig_node->count
+ = lenient_count_portion_handling (orig_node->count - redirected_sum,
+ orig_node);
for (cs = new_node->callees; cs; cs = cs->next_callee)
cs->count += cs->count.apply_scale (redirected_sum, new_node_count);
--
2.39.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-02-21 14:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-21 14:42 Martin Jambor [this message]
2023-03-08 10:32 ` Martin Jambor
2023-03-10 17:23 ` 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=ri6o7pncc66.fsf@suse.cz \
--to=mjambor@suse.cz \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jh@suse.cz \
/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).