[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210612203138.GH68208@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 22:31:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>
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 Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 01:20:15PM -0700, Fangrui Song wrote:
> For applications, I think instrumentation based PGO can be 1%~4% faster
> than sample-based PGO (e.g. AutoFDO) on x86.
Why? What specifically is missed by sample-based? I thought that LBR
augmented samples were very useful for exactly this.
> 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.
Every architecture that cares about performance had better have a
hardware PMU. Both argh64 and ppc64 have one.
> 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).
What's this context sensitive stuff you speak of? The link provided
earlier is devoid of useful information.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists