After the switch to the new pass manager, we have observed multiple instances of catastrophic inlining, where the inliner produces huge functions with many hundreds of thousands of instructions from small input IR. We were forced to back out the switch to the new pass manager for this reason. This patch fixes at least one of the root cause issues.
LLVM uses a bottom-up inliner, and the fact that functions are processed bottom-up is not just a question of optimality -- it is a critically imporant requirement to prevent runaway inlining. The premise of the current inlining approach and cost model is that after all calls inside a function have been inlined, it may get large enough that inlining it into its callers is no longer considered profitable. This safeguard does not exist if inlining doesn't happen bottom-up, as inlining the callees, and their callees, and their callees etc. will always seem individually profitable, and the inliner can easily flatten the whole call tree.
There are instances where we necessarily have to deviate from bottom-up inlining: When inlining in an SCC there is no natural "bottom", so inlining effectively happens top-down. This requires special care, and the inliner avoids exponential blowup by ensuring that functions in the SCC grow in a balanced way and will eventually hit the threshold.
However, there is one instance where the inlining advisor explicitly violates the bottom-up principle: Deferred inlining tries to "defer" inlining a call if it determines that inlining the caller into all its call-sites would be more profitable. Something very important to understand about deferred inlining is that it doesn't make one inlining choice in place of another -- it effectively chooses to do both. If we have a call chain A -> B -> C and cost modelling tells us that inlining B -> C is profitable, but we defer this and instead inline A -> B first, then we'll now have a call A -> C, and the cost model will (a few special cases notwithstanding) still tell us that this is profitable. So the end result is that we inlined *both* B and C, even though under the usual cost model function B would have been too large to further inline after C has been integrated into it.
Because deferred inlining violates the bottom-up invariant of the inliner, it can result in exponential inlining. The exponential-deferred-inlining.ll test case illustrates this on a simple example (see https://gist.github.com/nikic/1262b5f7d27278e1b34a190ae10947f5 for a much more catastrophic case with about 5000x size blowup). If the call chain A -> B -> C is not a chain but a tree of calls, then we end up deferring inlining across the tree and end up flattening everything into the root node.
This patch proposes to address this by disabling deferred inlining entirely (currently still behind an option). Beyond the issue of exponential inlining, I don't think that the whole concept makes sense, at least as long as deferred inlining still ends up inlining both call edges.
I believe the motivation for having deferred inlining in the first place is that you might have a small wrapper function with local linkage that could be eliminated if inlined. This would automatically happen if there was a single caller, due to the large "last call to local" bonus. However, this bonus is not extended if there are multiple callers, even if we would eventually end up inlining into all of them (if the bonus were extended).
Now, unlike the normal inlining cost model, the deferred inlining cost model does look at all callers, and will extend the "last call to local" bonus if it determines that we could inline all of them as long as we defer the current inlining decision. This makes very little sense. The "last call to local" bonus doesn't really cost model anything. It's basically an "infinite" bonus that ensures we always inline the last call to a local. The fact that it's not literally infinite just prevents inlining of huge functions, which can easily result in scalability issues. I very much doubt that it was an intentional cost-modelling choice to say that getting rid of a small local function is worth adding 15000 instructions elsewhere, yet this is exactly how this value is getting used here.
The main alternative I see to complete removal is to change deferred inlining to an actual either/or decision. That is, to mark deferred calls as noinline so we're actually trading off one inlining decision against another, and not just adding a side-channel to the cost model to do both.
Apart from fixing the catastrophic inlining case, the effect on rustc is a modest compile-time improvement on average (up to 8% for a parsing-type crate, where tree-like calls are expected) and pretty neutral where run-time performance is concerned (mix of small wins and losses, usually in the sub-1% category).
clang-format: please reformat the code
-static cl::opt<bool> EnableInlineDeferral( - "inline-deferral", cl::init(false), cl::Hidden, - cl::desc("Enable deferred inlining")); +static cl::opt<bool> EnableInlineDeferral("inline-deferral", cl::init(false), + cl::Hidden, + cl::desc("Enable deferred inlining"));