This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

Unpack the CostEstimate feature in ML inlining models.
ClosedPublic

Authored by jacobhegna on Jun 22 2021, 2:37 PM.

Details

Summary

This change yields an additional 2% size reduction on an internal search
binary and an additional 0.5% size reduction on fuchsia's Oz targets.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

jacobhegna created this revision.Jun 22 2021, 2:37 PM
jacobhegna requested review of this revision.Jun 22 2021, 2:37 PM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptJun 22 2021, 2:37 PM

Fix misc build issues.

jacobhegna retitled this revision from Unpack the CostEstimate feature in Oz ML inlining models. to Unpack the CostEstimate feature in ML inlining models..Jun 22 2021, 2:50 PM
jacobhegna edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
jacobhegna added a reviewer: mtrofin.
jacobhegna added a subscriber: phosek.
mtrofin added inline comments.Jun 22 2021, 2:58 PM
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineCost.h
57

I think it'd be preferable if this were defined on the ML side, like in InlineModelFeatureMaps.h.

The reason is that it brings in this concept of feature name (e.g. "sroa_savings"), which is a ML side concept.

llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineModelFeatureMaps.h
17

this wouldn't be needed once you move in the changes in InlineCost.h here.

llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp
469

I don't think the ML aspects should intermingle with the non-ml ones.

Move ML-specific code out of InlineCost.[h, cpp]

Switch to visitor design pattern

Additionally, we re-use the heuristic based cost estimate feature in the model,
which is then supplemented by the expanded cost features. This increases
stability in training.

In a later patch, we will revisit completely removing the heuristics from the ML.

Updated the config for mock model generation.

Removed unnecessary edits to heuristic inliner.

mtrofin added inline comments.Jun 29 2021, 9:33 AM
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineAdvisor.h
40 ↗(On Diff #355007)

unrelated change - if the linter did this, just group it (and others like it) upfront, and commit that as a NFC, then rebase this one

llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineCost.h
314

I'd drop the name 'array', suggests too much impl detail.

llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineModelFeatureMaps.h
51

Aah! I see why InlineCostFeaturesArray.

How about this enum were InlineCostFeatureIndex, and then the collection is InlineCostFeatures

llvm/lib/Analysis/CMakeLists.txt
8 ↗(On Diff #355007)

more clear to say "<TO BE UPDATED>"

llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp
132

remove spurious change

416–420

formatting change - see previous comment

427

formatting change

1057

Where is this used, other than in onDisableLoadElimination, where it's set to 0?

1058

this is counting the opportunities for SROACostSavings, right? Maybe rename to SROACostSavingOpportunities?

1061

Is this really a threshold, or can it have a name that better communicates what it accumulates? (apologies, can't right now figure what that may be)

same for the 2 bonuses above.

1089–1091

formatting

1196–1197

formatting

1351

formatting

2093–2095

formatting

2563

formatting

2656

Not sure. what's the value of CFA.features() if !R?

may be more clear to handle the error here and return {} or something like that. It creates less coupling between deep implementation details and their consumers; it also simplifies the state space of the values this API can produce.

Better yet: return an Optional<InlineCostFeaturesArray>, because a 0-valued feature vector isn't necessarily equivalent to CFA.analyze() saying "no". Returning None in that case is a more clear API

2916–2917

formatting

llvm/lib/Analysis/MLInlineAdvisor.cpp
46

why

254

do we still want this here?

jacobhegna added inline comments.Jun 29 2021, 10:39 AM
llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp
1057

it is meant so that InlineCostFeatures::LoadElimination is only ever set once, but there is a better way to express that. It also was never set to a nonzero value in the first place, which is just a bug.

1061

these are copied from the heuristic inline visitor and used in almost the same way - there is some complexity in the other visitor that isn't replicated here. I'll keep the names the same to reflect that duplication. In the future, there some be some abstraction so that the two visitors could share these values/logic for updating them.

2656

I'm wasn't returning an optional for a very specific reason: std::array cannot be efficiently moved-from. so, if I return an optional, we couldn't explicitly unpack it later without eating another copy of the array. I can swap it back now, then in MLInlineAdvisor.cpp avoid the copy by taking a reference to the array inside the optional. In a later patch, I want to switch the array to a vector, so that we can efficiently std::move it, and then returning an optional here wouldn't come with a performance hit

llvm/lib/Analysis/MLInlineAdvisor.cpp
46

clang-format doesn't seem to understand these back-to-back macros and tries to add another level of indentation to each line, it makes it hard to read.

254

ya - it increases stability in training. still looking in how to completely remove the heuristics from the ML without sacrificing training stability.

Address comments.

Rebase on to clang-format changes.

mtrofin added inline comments.Jun 29 2021, 12:55 PM
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineModelFeatureMaps.h
51

why not leave this where it was? because you can now populate the remainder in a loop?

64–65

unrelated change?

llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp
442

spurious change?

1061

OK, can you add a FIXME explaining this, above their name or something like that.

1064

I think increment would be more clear. Then Delta can have default value 1, too (For the few cases that'd be the case)

1097

can this '3' be a const with some name (so it's easier to chase down any magic factors)

1162

can we replace this 2 and the 4 above with const values with a good name

same below - 3, 2 etc.

jacobhegna marked 2 inline comments as done.

Address mtrofin's comments; add simple unit test.

jacobhegna added inline comments.Jun 30 2021, 8:52 PM
llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/InlineModelFeatureMaps.h
51

it's an artifact from when I was fiddling around with things - will move it back

64–65

are you referring to the newline that is inserted here? I think it just makes things easier to read in the enum

llvm/lib/Analysis/InlineCost.cpp
1097

discussing offline

1162

ok

mtrofin accepted this revision.Jun 30 2021, 9:47 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jun 30 2021, 9:47 PM

Forgot to name the constants - now added.

One thing to note is the getExpectedNumberOfCompare function. Because the same
math is used in both visitors, I abstracted it and moved the relevant comment.
Just want to double check that you think that's ok.

(One more constant)

mtrofin accepted this revision.Jul 1 2021, 8:17 AM

lgtm

uenoku added a subscriber: uenoku.Jul 2 2021, 8:22 AM
jacobhegna updated this revision to Diff 356179.Jul 2 2021, 8:36 AM

Silence clang tidy.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.