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]

Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 02:39:41 -0700
From:   Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        andreyknvl@...il.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization infrastructure

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 01:56:41PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 1:25 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 12:10:03PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > > Yes it is, but is that sufficient in this case? It very much isn't for
> > > KASAN, UBSAN, and a whole host of other instrumentation crud. They all
> > > needed their own 'bugger-off' attributes.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > Those aren't useful for clang-based implementations. And I like to
> > > > look forward to potential improvements.
> > >
> > > I look forward to less things doing the same over and over. The obvious
> > > solution if of course to make clang use what we have, not the other way
> > > around.
> > >
> > That is not the obvious "solution".
>
> Because having GCOV, KCOV and PGO all do essentially the same thing
> differently, makes heaps of sense?
>
It does when you're dealing with one toolchain without access to another.

> I understand that the compilers actually generates radically different
> instrumentation for the various cases, but essentially they're all
> collecting (function/branch) arcs.
>
That's true, but there's no one format for profiling data that's
usable between all compilers. I'm not even sure there's a good way to
translate between, say, gcov and llvm's format. To make matters more
complicated, each compiler's format is tightly coupled to a specific
version of that compiler. And depending on *how* the data is collected
(e.g. sampling or instrumentation), it may not give us the full
benefit of FDO/PGO.

> I'm thinking it might be about time to build _one_ infrastructure for
> that and define a kernel arc format and call it a day.
>
That may be nice, but it's a rather large request.

> Note that if your compiler does arcs with functions (like gcc, unlike
> clang) we can also trivially augment the arcs with PMU counter data. I
> once did that for userspace.