linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210612202015.s4743sr6d3lv3lgf@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Jun 2021 13:20:15 -0700
From:   Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization
 infrastructure

On 2021-06-12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:25:57AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 9:59 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > Also, and I don't see this answered *anywhere*, why are you not using
>> > perf for this? Your link even mentions Sampling Profilers (and I happen
>> > to know there's been significant effort to make perf output work as
>> > input for the PGO passes of the various compilers).
>> >
>> Instruction-based (non-sampling) profiling gives us a better
>> context-sensitive profile, making PGO more impactful. It's also useful
>> for coverage whereas sampling profiles cannot.
>
>We've got KCOV and GCOV support already. Coverage is also not an
>argument mentioned anywhere else. Coverage can go pound sand, we really
>don't need a third means of getting that.
>
>Do you have actual numbers that back up the sampling vs instrumented
>argument? Having the instrumentation will affect performance which can
>scew the profile just the same.
>
>Also, sampling tends to capture the hot spots very well.

[I don't do kernel development. My experience is user-space toolchain.]

For applications, I think instrumentation based PGO can be 1%~4% faster
than sample-based PGO (e.g. AutoFDO) on x86.

Sample-based PGO has CPU requirement (e.g. Performance Monitoring Unit).
(my gut feeling is that there may be larger gap between instrumentation
based PGO and sample-based PGO for aarch64/ppc64, even though they can
use sample-based PGO.)
Instrumentation based PGO can be ported to more architectures.

In addition, having an infrastructure for instrumentation based PGO
makes it easy to deploy newer techniques like context-sensitive PGO
(just changed compile options; it doesn't need new source level
annotation).