Anna, sorry, now I see what you mean (I needed to pass --fblocks on the command
line).
The following simple patch fixes the performance in this case, as well as
brings the implementation in line with the comment just above it (dequeue
rather than unstack).
Index: lib/Analysis/DataflowWorklist.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Analysis/DataflowWorklist.cpp (revision 218295)
+++ lib/Analysis/DataflowWorklist.cpp (working copy)
@@ -58,8 +101,10 @@
// First dequeue from the worklist. This can represent
// updates along backedges that we want propagated as quickly as possible.
- if (!worklist.empty())
- B = worklist.pop_back_val();
+ if (!worklist.empty()) {
+ B = worklist.front();
+ worklist.erase(worklist.begin());
+ }
// Next dequeue from the initial graph traversal (either post order or
// reverse post order). This is the theoretical ideal in the presence
The two patches are independent one from the other.
From: Anna Zaks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 03 October 2014 19:56
To: Artyom Skrobov
Cc: Alexander Kornienko; Ted Kremenek; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables analysis,
to recover the performance after r214064
The analyzer is still timing out for me on postgresql.
I am going to send a preprocessed file off line.
Maybe you will find some answers by looking at other performance related
patches for LiveVariables that have been committed over years.
Anna.
On Oct 2, 2014, at 4:45 AM, Artyom Skrobov <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I see now that the CFG iteration orders, so painstakingly defined during the
previous round of reviews in Aug, didn’t entirely match the pre-r214064
behaviour.
Attached is a patch that simplifies PostOrderCFGView significantly, making the
two possible iteration orders really obvious.
I have tested it with both Alexander’s testcases (analyzer-regression1.c from
Sep, and options.c from Aug), and it shows good performance on both.
OK to un-revert r218296, and to commit this patch on top of that?
From: Alexander Kornienko [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21 September 2014 01:16
To: Artyom Skrobov
Cc: Anna Zaks; [email protected] Commits
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables analysis,
to recover the performance after r214064
I'm attaching one of the files that regressed after r214064 and never got fixed
(preprocessed ceval.c from Python 3.3).
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Alexander Kornienko <
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
I actually still think, that I have some code that started taking large time to
be analyzed after r214064 and didn't recover after r215650. But I didn't get to
creating a reasonable repro for you. And the number of files left affected
after r215650 is so small, that I didn't prioritize this high enough. I'll
still try to provide a repro soon.
On 20 Sep 2014 17:10, "Artyom Skrobov" < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]> wrote:
Anna, do you mean the performance had been acceptable after r214064, but
degraded after r215650, which fixed the performance regression introduced in
r214064?
Do you have any specific example of code that takes longer to compile after
r215650?
Not hearing back from Alexander since August, I assumed the performance
regression he observed after r215650 was not in fact related to that commit.
From: Anna Zaks [mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]]
Sent: 20 September 2014 01:19
To: Artyom Skrobov
Cc: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Commits; Ted
Kremenek; Jordan Rose; Alexander Kornienko
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables analysis,
to recover the performance after r214064
Hi Artyom,
Unfortunately, this commit (r215650) causes major performance regressions on
our buildbots. In particular, building postgresql-9.1 times out.
Please, revert as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Anna.
On Aug 20, 2014, at 3:13 AM, Alexander Kornienko < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Artyom Skrobov <
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
Many thanks -- committed as r215650
Alexander, can you confirm that the analyzer performance is now acceptable
for your use cases?
Artyom, sorry for the long delay. These files now work fine, but I still see up
to 8-10 hours analysis time on a couple of other files. I'm sure I didn't see
this before your first patch, but I can't yet tell in which revision it was
introduced. I'll post more details and a repro later today.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted kremenek [mailto: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]]
Sent: 14 August 2014 16:36
To: Artyom Skrobov
Cc: Alexander Kornienko; <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inverse post-order traversal for LiveVariables
analysis, to recover the performance after r214064
Looks great to me.
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 3:08 AM, Artyom Skrobov < <mailto:[email protected]>
> [email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Thank you Ted!
>
> Attaching the updated patch for a final review.
>
> Summary of changes:
>
> * Comments updated to reflect the two possible CFG traversal orders
> * PostOrderCFGView::po_iterator taken out of the header file
> * Iteration order for PostOrderCFGView changed to "reverse inverse
> post-order", the one required for a backward analysis
> * ReversePostOrderCFGView created, with the same iteration order that
> PostOrderCFGView used to have, the one required for a forward analysis
> * The two previous consumers of PostOrderCFGView, ThreadSafetyCommon.h and
> Consumed.cpp, switched to use ReversePostOrderCFGView
> * DataflowWorklistBase renamed to DataflowWorklist, and the two
> specializations named BackwardDataflowWorklist and ForwardDataflowWorklist
>
> I believe this naming scheme matches the accepted terminology best.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
<PostOrderCFGView.patch>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
