[llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing optimization size level from LLVM and relying on minsize/optsize

[Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev]

Currently in the LLVM IR optimization pipelines we pass around an OptimizationLevel, which consists of a speedup level and a size level (e.g. -O1 is {1, 0}, -Oz is {2, 2}). We use the size level to turn on/off some passes and also to determine inliner thresholds.

When attempting to add support for -Os/-Oz in https://reviews.llvm.org/D113738, I got some pushback saying that we should be relying on the function attributes minsize and optsize. The logical extension of that is to completely remove the size level from OptimizationLevel and rely on frontends to set minsize/optsize for -Os/-Oz. Passes that are disabled with -Os/-Oz can check those attributes instead.

There are some tests (e.g. inline-optsize.ll) that test that if we have optsize and -Oz, the lower inlining threshold (-Oz in this case) wins, but perhaps we can revisit that and calculate inline thresholds purely based on the function attributes.

Any thoughts?

[Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev]

I do not believe in encoding optimization levels in the IR. The optimization level is an option for the machinery of the compiler, and not part of the semantics of the program.

-Matt

[Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev]

On 11/12/21 14:09, Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 15:03, Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Currently in the LLVM IR optimization pipelines we pass around an OptimizationLevel, which consists of a speedup level and a size level (e.g. -O1 is {1, 0}, -Oz is {2, 2}). We use the size level to turn on/off some passes and also to determine inliner thresholds.
>>

>> When attempting to add support for -Os/-Oz in https://reviews.llvm.org/D113738 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113738>, I got some pushback saying that we should be relying on the function attributes minsize and optsize. The logical extension of that is to completely remove the size level from OptimizationLevel and rely on frontends to set minsize/optsize for -Os/-Oz. Passes that are disabled with -Os/-Oz can check those attributes instead.

>>
>> There are some tests (e.g. inline-optsize.ll) that test that if we have optsize and -Oz, the lower inlining threshold (-Oz in this case) wins, but perhaps we can revisit that and calculate inline thresholds purely based on the function attributes.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
> I do not believe in encoding optimization levels in the IR. The optimization level is an option for the machinery of the compiler, and not part of the semantics of the program.

While I agree it is not semantics, we already encode similar things,
e.g. related to toolchains and architectures, optnone, ... in different
places of the IR.
Maybe I'm missing why having such information in the IR is inherently bad.

I say this because I very much like to encode all optimizations levels
in IR, incl. O0/1/2/3/z/s/..., such that we can select the level per
function rather than per file.
We have a prototype for that incl. some pass manager work but it's not
ready for prime time yet (IIRC).

~ Johannes

> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm...@lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm...@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

[via llvm-dev]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev...@lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Johannes
> Doerfert via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 4:31 PM
> To: Matt Arsenault <ars...@gmail.com>; Arthur Eubanks
> <aeub...@google.com>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>; Tarindu Jayatilaka
> <tarinduj...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Removing optimization size level from LLVM
> and relying on minsize/optsize
>
>
> On 11/12/21 14:09, Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev wrote:
> >

> >> On Nov 12, 2021, at 15:03, Arthur Eubanks via llvm-dev <llvm-

> d...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently in the LLVM IR optimization pipelines we pass around an
> OptimizationLevel, which consists of a speedup level and a size level
> (e.g. -O1 is {1, 0}, -Oz is {2, 2}). We use the size level to turn on/off
> some passes and also to determine inliner thresholds.
> >>
> >> When attempting to add support for -Os/-Oz in

> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://reviews.llvm.org/D113738__;!!JmoZiZGBv
> 3RvKRSx!p0ynTSMsF1gDjsDYRsLyrJBMVYJVoxDbIGcbR3O9ZFWpknnQtWFkW40vUtzP1oWu_Q
> $
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://reviews.llvm.org/D113738__;!!JmoZiZGB
> v3RvKRSx!p0ynTSMsF1gDjsDYRsLyrJBMVYJVoxDbIGcbR3O9ZFWpknnQtWFkW40vUtzP1oWu_
> Q$ >, I got some pushback saying that we should be relying on the function

> attributes minsize and optsize. The logical extension of that is to
> completely remove the size level from OptimizationLevel and rely on
> frontends to set minsize/optsize for -Os/-Oz. Passes that are disabled
> with -Os/-Oz can check those attributes instead.
> >>
> >> There are some tests (e.g. inline-optsize.ll) that test that if we have
> optsize and -Oz, the lower inlining threshold (-Oz in this case) wins, but
> perhaps we can revisit that and calculate inline thresholds purely based
> on the function attributes.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> > I do not believe in encoding optimization levels in the IR. The
> optimization level is an option for the machinery of the compiler, and not
> part of the semantics of the program.
>
> While I agree it is not semantics, we already encode similar things,
> e.g. related to toolchains and architectures, optnone, ... in different
> places of the IR.
> Maybe I'm missing why having such information in the IR is inherently bad.
>
> I say this because I very much like to encode all optimizations levels
> in IR, incl. O0/1/2/3/z/s/..., such that we can select the level per
> function rather than per file.
> We have a prototype for that incl. some pass manager work but it's not
> ready for prime time yet (IIRC).

We defined "optnone" in order to allow selectively disabling
optimization at the source level; this is very useful to users.
You can argue about whether it conveys "IR semantics" but it
certainly reflects a choice made by the programmer, and to implement
that choice it needed to be recorded in the IR. We don't have any
other mechanism for conveying that kind of information to LLVM.

"optnone" was then leveraged to allow compiling "-flto -O0" on
some modules to be preserved through the LTO stage, which is why
Clang puts optnone on all functions at -O0. Chandler was quite
clear at the time that "no optimization" was different in kind
from "some level of optimization" and resisted encoding levels
other than optnone into the IR (although I believe optsize/minsize
predate optnone).

Encoding these things in IR means defining rules for how they
interact when IPOs find functions with differing optimization
controls. We punted on this for optnone, instead defining a rule
that said optnone functions had to be marked noinline, so the
inliner didn't need to learn a special rule about optnone functions.
I see things crossing the lists about how floating-point controls
get interprocedural behavior wrong all the time. My takeaway is:
It's complicated, and we don't want to go there.
I'd be very hesitant to start throwing lots more combinations into
the mix.

--paulr

[Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev]

It's complicated yes, but we got it wrong already. You said so yourself
and any `no-ipa` discussion/bug will also attest to that. The idea that
*not* changing anything anymore is therefore somewhat counter-intuitive
to me. If we would actually sit down to define what the interactions are
we could fix existing problems and make progress. However, using the
`no-ipa` discussions again as example, w/o a new attribute there is no way
to make everyone happy. The problem is not that we "add too much", the
problem (often) is that we do overload what we have rather than
differentiate properly what we want. (Why we do that is a different
question.)

`optnone`/`noinline` means different things to different people,
as did `derferenceable` and other attributes. The solution to these problems
was, and will continue to be, differentiation through new
attributes/options.

Long story short, it's not the number of attributes/options that is the
problem
but nailing down their semantics and interplay. That is not to say we get it
right by adding more, but history shows problems are solved through new
ones if
the problems of existing ones are taken into account during their
definition.

~ Johannes

[Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev]

How would PassBuilderPipelines.cpp getInlineParamsFromOptLevel be implemented - note that the params affect a module-wide policy. Or would there be module-wide attributes and a priority scheme? (I'm trying to understand the full proposal)

[Snider, Todd via llvm-dev]

 

Hi Arthur,

 

If -Oz/-Os are implemented via front-end setting the optnone/minsize attribute, would that have any impact on code-size related IPOs like machine outlining?

 

~ Todd

 

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev...@lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 2:10 PM
To: Arthur Eubanks <aeub...@google.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org>

[Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev]

With respect to Os/Oz, it seems to me that what is controlled by the attribute can largely be orthogonal to the actual passes that are executed.

In this sense the attributes (optnone, minsize, optsize) conveys "optimizations hints", which can largely be orthogonal to how the pass pipeline is set up. 

Of course, with this view the "minsize" attribute shouldn't have much effect when setting up an O0 kind of pass pipeline.

On the other hand, I have a hard time seeing O1/O2/O3 encoded in the IR: I see these very much as pass pipeline setup. Encoding this in the IR would also be hard to reconcile with how we've been doing LTO. But I'd be interested to see a more detailed RFC if anyone wanted to look into this.

-- 

Mehdi

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

(sorry, haven't read all the replies)

I think there was a fair bit of discussion on this when the optnone and minsize attributes were added way-back-when - Chandler at least expressed a pretty firm opinion that these more "fundamental" requests that are currently attributes were distinct from -O1/2/3 - like noinline, there's some specific property we want from the code with those attributes that's hardest to describe with O1/2/3 which are a vague sliding scale of size/perf tradeoffs.

But for things we already have attributes for - yeah, naively (ie: take my opinion with lots of salt) it seems reasonable to have them be the only way to convey that information. (wonder if/how bad it'd be to do that with -O0/optnone... maybe not much value in it? Not sure - could make LTO and non-LTO more similar maybe - would exercise the "is optnone respected even in a single file" more frequently)