public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
To: Jeffrey A Law <law@redhat.com>
Cc: jh@suse.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Slow profile updating (pr 15524)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:14:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041120050512.GO19066@kam.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1100904370.27318.54.camel@localhost.localdomain>

> 
> Believe it or not we're at a point where updating of the profile in
> response to a jump thread is the most expensive routine in the 
> compiler for PR 15524.
> 
> 
> If we look up update_bb_profile_for_threading we see one loop of
> significance:
> 
>   else
>     FOR_EACH_EDGE (c, ei, bb->succs)
>       c->probability = ((c->probability * REG_BR_PROB_BASE) / (double)
> prob);
> 
> 
> So anytime we thread through some block BB, we have to walk through
> all its successors to rescale their probabilities.  Needless to say
> that gets rather expensive, especially if BB has a large switch
> statement and several of its incoming edges are threadable.
> 
> Is it the case that the computation of c->probability actually
> has to happen in the order you specified via the parenthesis?  If
> not, then we could precompute REG_BR_PROB_BASE / (double) prob
> outside the loop which would result in a loop like
> 
>     tmp = REG_BR_PROB_BASE / (double) prob;
>     FOR_EACH_EDGE (c, ei, bb->succs)
>       c->probability *= tmp;
> 
> Which would probably provide a reasonable improvement.

It is just rescaling.  I think the (double) cast is actually redundant
here, but if we want to go into double precision we might lift the
division out as you sugest.
> 
> And if that's safe, then we'd probably want to rewrite it like
> 
>   else if (prob != REG_BR_PROB_BASE)
>     {
>       double tmp = REG_BR_PROB_BASE / (double) prob;
>       FOR_EACH_EDGE 9c, ei, bb->succs)
>         c->probability *= tmp;
>     }
> 
> Which avoids the loop completely if nothing is going to change (as is
> the case for pr15524).

Yep, that would be fine too ;)
> 
> Doing something like this would give us a net improvement of 15-20% on
> PR 15524.
> 
> Alternately we might want to look at whether or not we can rescale the
> successor blocks en-masse after all the redirections for a particular
> block are complete.

This might be good idea too, but we need to be careful that we won't
confuse ourselves while doing the other updates, so it is rather
fragile...

Honza
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> jeff
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2004-11-20  5:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-11-20  0:41 Jeffrey A Law
2004-11-20 14:14 ` Jan Hubicka [this message]

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=20041120050512.GO19066@kam.mff.cuni.cz \
    --to=jh@suse.cz \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jh@suse.com \
    --cc=law@redhat.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).