PUBLIC Yes I was, since I am using 9.12.1.
This is great stuff -- with !13593 backported, I don’t see any ModuleGraph-related stuff showing up in top spots of the heap profile! Thank you for pointing me towards this! I’ll have to do some more digging to see if there is anything else concretely blameable now. But in theory, morally, abstractly, from the 10,000 feet view, would it be correct to say that there should be no memory usage difference between typechecking a large number of modules from scratch vs. loading the `.hi` files for those same modules? (Modulo, of course, the memory usage during any single module’s typechecking). From: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 6:03 PM To: Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com> Cc: GHC Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org>; ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu>; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent <raphael.montelat...@sc.com>; Dijkstra, Atze <atze.dijks...@sc.com> Subject: [External] Re: GHC memory usage when typechecking from source vs. loading ModIfaces I think you are missing https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/13593<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/13593__;!!ASp95G87aa5DoyK5mB3l!736R3M2loLHwk60BLtBarIhVc0mTMNZ41vyzyjTmqQJ81DibLFqtrJNUeZLxM8YOIGmg8SbzoAYXhGK97EyBWDm9$> On HEAD I get maximum residency of about 200M, NodeKey usage is constant. On 9.10.1, I get maximum residency of 400M, NodeKey usage looks quadratic. On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 10:47 AM Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>> wrote: PUBLIC zcat ../repro-hs.patch.gz |patch -p0 From: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com<mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:39 PM To: Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>> Cc: GHC Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>>; ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu<mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>>; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent <raphael.montelat...@sc.com<mailto:raphael.montelat...@sc.com>>; Dijkstra, Atze <atze.dijks...@sc.com<mailto:atze.dijks...@sc.com>> Subject: [External] Re: GHC memory usage when typechecking from source vs. loading ModIfaces What command do I run to generate the files from this patch file? Perhaps a link to a git repo would be a suitable way to share the reproducer? On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 10:26 AM Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>> wrote: PUBLIC Hi Matt, I think I have something that might demonstrate that GHC (at least GHC 9.12.1) might have a similar problem! With the attached vacuous module hierarchy, I tried compiling M2294 from scratch, and then with `.hi` files for everything except the toplevel module. I did the same with our GHC-API-using compiler as well. As you can see from the attached event logs, while the details differ, the overall shape of the memory used by ModuleGraph edges (750k of GWIB and NodeKey_Module constructors for the 2321 ModuleNodes and ~60k direct dependency edges) is pretty much the same between our compiler and GHC 9.12, suggesting to me that GHC is duplicating ModuleGraph node information in the dependency edges when building the transitive closure. Based on these measurements, do you agree that this is a GHC-side problem of memory usage scaling quadratically with the number of dependency edges? Thanks, Gergo p.s.: Sorry for including the reproducer module tree in this weird format as a patch file, but I am behind a mail server that won’t let me send mails with too many individual files in attached archives… From: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com<mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 8:40 PM To: Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>> Cc: GHC Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>>; ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu<mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>>; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent <raphael.montelat...@sc.com<mailto:raphael.montelat...@sc.com>>; Dijkstra, Atze <atze.dijks...@sc.com<mailto:atze.dijks...@sc.com>> Subject: [External] Re: GHC memory usage when typechecking from source vs. loading ModIfaces HI Gergo, Do you have a (synthetic?) reproducer? You have probably identified some memory leak. However, without any means to reproduce it becomes very difficult to investigate. I feel like we are getting into very precise details now, where speculating is not going to be so useful. It seems like this is an important thing for you and your company. Is there any budget to pay for some investigation? If that was the case then some effort could be made to create a synthetic producer and make the situation more robust going into the future if your requirements were precisely understood. Cheers, Matt On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 10:12 AM Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>> wrote: PUBLIC Just to add that I get the same "equalizing" behaviour (but in a more "natural" way) if instead of deepseq-ing the ModuleGraph upfront, I just call `hugInstancesBelow` before processing each module. So that's definitely one source of extra memory usage. I wonder if it would be possible to rebuild the ModuleGraph periodically (similar to the ModDetails dehydration), or if there are references to it stored all over the place from `HscEnv`s scattered around in closures etc. (basically the same problem the HPT had before it was made into a mutable reference). -----Original Message----- From: ghc-devs <ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org>> On Behalf Of Erdi, Gergo via ghc-devs Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 4:49 PM To: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com<mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>>; GHC Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>> Cc: ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu<mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>>; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent <raphael.montelat...@sc.com<mailto:raphael.montelat...@sc.com>>; Dijkstra, Atze <atze.dijks...@sc.com<mailto:atze.dijks...@sc.com>> Subject: [External] Re: GHC memory usage when typechecking from source vs. loading ModIfaces Hi, Unfortunately, I am forced to return to this problem. Everything below is now in the context of GHC 9.12 plus the mutable HPT patch backported. My test case is typechecking a tree of 2294 modules that form the transitive closure of a single module's dependencies, all in a single process. I have done this typechecking three times, here's what `+RTS -s -RTS` reports for max residency: * "cold": With no on-disk `ModIface` files, i.e. from scratch: 537 MB * "cold-top": With all `ModIface`s already on disk, except for the single top-level module: 302 MB * "warm": With all `ModIface`s already on disk: 211 MB So my stupidly naive question is, why is the "cold" case also not 302 MB? In earlier discussion, `ModDetails` unfolding has come up. Dehydrating `ModDetails` in the HPT all the time is disastrous for runtime, but based on this model I would expect to see improvements from dehydrating "every now and then". So I tried a stupid simple example where after every 100th typechecked module, I run this function on the topologically sorted list of modules processed so far: ``` dehydrateHpt :: HscEnv -> [ModuleName] -> IO () dehydrateHpt hsc_env mods = do let HPT{ table = hptr } = hsc_HPT hsc_env hpt <- readIORef hptr for_ mods \mod -> for_ (lookupUDFM hpt mod) \(HomeModInfo iface _details _linkable) -> do !details <- initModDetails hsc_env iface pure () ``` Buuut the max residency is still 534 MB (see "cold-dehydrate"); in fact, the profile looks exactly the same. Speaking of the profile, in the "cold" case I see a lot of steadily increasing heap usage from the `ModuleGraph`. I could see this happening if typechecking from scratch involves more `modulesUnder` calls which in turn force more and more of the `ModuleGraph`. If so, then maybe this could be worked around by repeatedly remaking the `ModuleGraph` just like I remake the `ModDetails` above. I tried getting rid of this effect by `deepseq`'ing the `ModuleGraph` at the start, with the idea being that this should "equalize" the three scenarios if this really is a substantial source of extra memory usage. This pushes up the warm case's memory usage to 381 MB, which is promising, but I still see a `Word64Map` that is steadily increasing in the "cold-force-modulegraph" case and contributes a lot to the memory usage. Unfortunately, I don't know where that `Word64Map` is (it could be any `Unique`-keyed environment...). So I am now stuck at this point. To spell out my goal explicitly, I would like to typecheck one module after another and not keep anything more in memory around than if I loaded them from `ModIface` files. Thanks, Gergo p.s.: I couldn't find a way in the EventLog output HTML to turn event markers on/off or filter them, so to avoid covering the whole graph with gray lines, I mark only every 100th module. From: Matthew Pickering <matthewtpicker...@gmail.com<mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 7:08 PM To: ÉRDI Gergő <ge...@erdi.hu<mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>> Cc: Erdi, Gergo <gergo.e...@sc.com<mailto:gergo.e...@sc.com>>; Zubin Duggal <zu...@well-typed.com<mailto:zu...@well-typed.com>>; Montelatici, Raphael Laurent <raphael.montelat...@sc.com<mailto:raphael.montelat...@sc.com>>; GHC Devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org<mailto:ghc-devs@haskell.org>> Subject: [External] Re: GHC memory usage when typechecking from source vs. loading ModIfaces You do also raise a good point about rehydration costs. In oneshot mode, you are basically rehydrating the entire transitive closure of each module when you compile it, which obviously results in a large amount of repeated work. This is why people are investigating ideas of a persistent worker to at least avoid rehydrating all external dependencies as well. On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:13 PM Matthew Pickering <mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com<mailto:matthewtpicker...@gmail.com>> wrote: Sure, you can remove them once you are sure they are not used anymore. For clients like `GHCi` that doesn't work obviously as they can be used at any point in the future but for a batch compiler it would be fine. On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:56 AM ÉRDI Gergő <mailto:ge...@erdi.hu<mailto:ge...@erdi.hu>> wrote: On Mon, 10 Feb 2025, Matthew Pickering wrote: > I wonder if you have got your condition the wrong way around. > > The only "safe" time to perform rehydration is AFTER the point it can > never be used again. > > If you rehydrate it just before it is used then you will repeat work > which has already been done. If you do this, you will always have a > trade-off between space used and runtime. Oops. Yes, I have misunderstood the idea. I thought the idea was that after loading a given module into the HPT, its ModDetails would start out small (because of laziness) and then keep growing in size as more and more of it are traversed, and thus forced, during the typechecking of its dependees, so at some point we would want to reset that into the small initial representation as created by initModDetails. But if the idea is that I should rehydrate modules when they can't be used anymore, then that brings up the question why even do that, instead of straight removing the HomeModInfos from the HPT? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our public website. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our main Standard Chartered PLC (UK) website at sc. com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our main Standard Chartered PLC (UK) website at sc. com ________________________________ This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our main Standard Chartered PLC (UK) website at sc. com ________________________________ This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our main Standard Chartered PLC (UK) website at sc. com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries together with Standard Chartered Bank’s Privacy Policy via our main Standard Chartered PLC (UK) website at sc. com
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
