ok.
David
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Dehao Chen <de...@google.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, copy_cfg_body is actually using basic block count
> instead of cgraph edge count. Thus even fixing up the call graph does
> not solve the problem. The 2nd chunk of the patch (cgraphclones.c) is
> actually not necessary. We only need the first part (tree-inline.c).
>
> Thanks,
> Dehao
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Xinliang David Li <davi...@google.com> wrote:
>> Can callgraph node count be fixed up properly instead of doing
>> individual fixups like this?
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Dehao Chen <de...@google.com> wrote:
>>> In AutoFDO, sometime edge count might be propagated to be too large
>>> due to bad debug info. In this cases, we need to make sure the count
>>> scale is no larger than 100% otherwise it'll make real hot code cold.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and passed regression test. Performance test on-going.
>>>
>>> OK for google-4_8 if performance test is ok?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dehao
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/tree-inline.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/tree-inline.c (revision 206721)
>>> +++ gcc/tree-inline.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -2262,6 +2262,9 @@ copy_cfg_body (copy_body_data * id, gcov_type coun
>>> else
>>> count_scale = REG_BR_PROB_BASE;
>>>
>>> + if (flag_auto_profile && count_scale > REG_BR_PROB_BASE)
>>> + count_scale = REG_BR_PROB_BASE;
>>> +
>>> /* Register specific tree functions. */
>>> gimple_register_cfg_hooks ();
>>>
>>> Index: gcc/cgraphclones.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- gcc/cgraphclones.c (revision 206721)
>>> +++ gcc/cgraphclones.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -216,7 +216,10 @@ cgraph_clone_node (struct cgraph_node *n, tree dec
>>> count, we will not update the original callee because it may
>>> mistakenly mark some hot function as cold. */
>>> if (flag_auto_profile && count >= n->count)
>>> - update_original = false;
>>> + {
>>> + update_original = false;
>>> + new_node->count = n->count;
>>> + }
>>> if (update_original)
>>> {
>>> n->count -= count;
