The current default of appending "_"+entry block label to the new
extracted cold function breaks demangling. Change this to ".cold" for hot
cold splitting (other uses of CodeExtractor still use old naming), since
the demangler knows how to handle suffixes starting with ".". This
is also consistent with how gcc names the split cold functions.
Details
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
- Build Status
Buildable 24159 Build 24158: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | In the case of more than one region extracted from a function, this code may create functions with identical names which would create link problems. |
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | Will the hot cold split pass extract more than one cold function from a single function? |
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | Yes with https://reviews.llvm.org/D53588 |
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | Ok I see. It would make sense then to append a unique id, which could be the header name. Also we may in general want to change the "_" here to a "." so that the demangler handles it appropriately, regardless of whether we change the suffix after that deliminator. I did see in my internal project that a lot of the cold split funcs actually ended with "_" without any header label - I need to go back and investigate - do we have empty header names in some cases? Because if so, with splitting into multiple funcs we will also end up with name collisions. Let me take another look... |
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | When the IR is generated by a release built clang, the bb labels are empty. So that will cause issues with your D53588 patch, since all outlined funcs will be named original name + "_". So they need to use some other id when the name is empty. Perhaps the client of CodeExtractor needs to supply a unique id (for hot cold split you could just enumerate the split out functions for each original function and use that as a unique id). |
lib/Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
682 | Ok I reworked the patch a bit:
I will upload the patch momentarily. I just realized though, that we will still have problems if the hot cold split pass is ever run multiple times, which after D53437 is only an issue with the ThinLTO newPM. I will send a separate patch to fix that, that will need to land before this one. |
@sebpop, @vsk or @hiraditya can probably answer this. I'm not working on the core hot cold splitting algorithm, just some issues I'm finding as I try it. But presumably the linker should be grouping the split hot functions together and the split cold functions together, when building with -ffunction-sections and PGO which should put them in the .text.hot and .text.unlikely sections, respectively.
- Always use "." as the delimiter for the suffix instead of "_" to enable demangling
- If the label is empty and no suffix passed in from client, use "extracted" after the "." (the demangler needs something after the "." to handle it correctly).
- Pass in "cold."+Count from the hot cold splitting pass as the suffix, where Count is currently hardwired to 1 but after D53588 can be changed to be a monotonically increasing count of the functions split from a single function.
Unfortunately change 1) required many test changes.
The change looks good with some minor changes. Thanks!
lib/Transforms/IPO/HotColdSplitting.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
345 | Given the commit message: Pass in "cold."+Count /* Suffix */ "cold." + std::to_string(Count)); | |
424 | I like this change, makes it very easy to get unique function names. | |
test/Transforms/HotColdSplit/split-cold-2.ll | ||
7 | I was expecting to see an integer appended to "cold" like so "fun.cold.1" |
The pass currently does not group hot or cold code together. Teresa's explanation is correct -- we'll need linker support to do that. On Darwin I have plans to implement this by adding a section modifier (similar to live_support), as this doesn't require creating a new section or messing with order files.
Given the commit message: Pass in "cold."+Count
I think the above statement is missing the dot after cold: