Hi, Richard
On 03/28, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 2:55 PM Giuliano Belinassi
> <giuliano.belina...@usp.br> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 03/26, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 19:51 -0400, nick wrote:
> > > > > Greetings All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to take up parallelize compilation using threads or make
> > > > > c++/c
> > > > > memory issues not automatically promote. I did ask about this before
> > > > > but
> > > > > not get a reply. When someone replies I'm just a little concerned as
> > > > > my writing for proposals has never been great so if someone just
> > > > > reviews
> > > > > and doubt checks that's fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the other things building gcc and running the testsuite is
> > > > > fine. Plus
> > > > > I already working on gcc so I've pretty aware of most things and this
> > > > > would
> > > > > be a great steeping stone into more serious gcc development work.
> > > > >
> > > > > If sample code is required that's in mainline gcc I sent out a trial
> > > > > patch
> > > > > for this issue: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88395
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > > It's good to see that you've gotten as far as attaching a patch to BZ
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > > I think someone was going to attempt the "parallelize compilation using
> > > > threads" idea last year, but then pulled out before the summer; you may
> > > > want to check the archives (or was that you?)
> > >
> > > There's also Giuliano Belinassi who is interested in the same project
> > > (CCed).
> >
> > Yes, I will apply for this project, and I will submit the final version
> > of my proposal by the end of the week.
> >
> > Currently, my target is the `expand_all_functions` routine, as most of
> > the time is spent on it according to the experiments that I performed as
> > part of my Master's research on compiler parallelization.
> > (-O2, --disable-checking)
>
> Yes, more specifically I think the realistic target is the GIMPLE part
> of execute_pass_list (cfun, g->get_passes ()->all_passes); done in
> cgraph_node::expand. If you look at passes.def you'll see all_passes
> also contains RTL expansion (pass_expand) and the RTL optimization
> queue (pass_rest_of_compilation). The RTL part isn't a realistic target.
> Without changing the pass hierarchy the obvious part that can be
> handled would be the pass_all_optimizations pass sub-queue of
> all_passes since those are all passes that perform transforms on the
> GIMPLE IL where we have all functions in this state at the same time
> and where no interactions between the functions happen anymore
> and thus functions can be processed in parallel (as much as make
> processes individual translation units in parallel).
>
Great. So if I understood correctly, I will need to split
cgraph_node::expand() into three parts: IPA, GIMPLE and RTL, and then
refactor `expand_all_functions` so that the loop
for (i = new_order_pos - 1; i >= 0; i--)
use these three functions, then partition
g->get_passes()->all_passes
into get_passes()->gimple_passes and get_passes()->rtl_passes, so I
can run RTL after GIMPLE is finished, to finally start the
paralellization of per function GIMPLE passes.
> To simplify the taks further a useful constraint is to not have
> a single optimization pass executed multiple times at the same time
> (otherwise you have to look at pass specific global states as well),
> thus the parallel part could be coded in a way keeping per function
> the state of what pass to execute next and have a scheduler pick
> a function its next pass is "free", scheduling that to a fixed set of
> worker threads. There's no dependences between functions
> for the scheduling but each pass has only one execution resource
> in the pipeline. You can start processing an arbitrarily large number
> of functions but slow functions will keep others from advancing across
> the pass it executes on.
>
Something like a pipeline? That is certainly a start, but if one pass is
very slow wouldn't it bottleneck everything?
> Passes could of course be individually marked as thread-safe
> (multiple instances execute concurrently).
>
> Garbage collection is already in control of the pass manager which
> would also be the thread scheduler. For GC the remaining issue
> is allocation which passes occasionally do. Locking is the short
> term solution for GSoC I guess, long-term per-thread GC pools
> might be better (to not slow down non-threaded parts of the compiler).
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Giuliano.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > IIRC Richard [CCed] was going to mentor, with me co-mentoring [2] - but
> > > > I don't know if he's still interested/able to spare the cycles.
> > >
> > > I've offered mentoring to Giuliano, so yes.
> > >
> > > > That said, the parallel compilation one strikes me as very ambitious;
> > > > it's not clear to me what could realistically be done as a GSoC
> > > > project. I think a good proposal on that would come up with some
> > > > subset of the problem that's doable over a summer, whilst also being
> > > > useful to the project. The RTL infrastructure has a lot of global
> > > > state, so maybe either focus on the gimple passes, or on fixing global
> > > > state on the RTL side? (I'm not sure)
> > >
> > > That was the original intent for the experiment. There's also
> > > the already somewhat parallel WPA stage in LTO compilation mode
> > > (but it simply forks for the sake of simplicity...).
> > >
> > > > Or maybe a project to be more
> > > > explicit about regions of the code that assume that the garbage-
> > > > collector can't run within them?[3] (since the GC is state that would
> > > > be shared by the threads).
> > >
> > > The GC will be one obstackle. The original idea was to drive
> > > parallelization on the pass level by the pass manager for the
> > > GIMPLE passes, so serialization points would be in it.
> > >
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > Hope this is constructive/helpful
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > [1] though typically our workflow involved sending patches to the gcc-
> > > > patches mailing list
> > > > [2] as libgccjit maintainer I have an interest in global state within
> > > > the compiler
> > > > [3] I posted some ideas about this back in 2013 IIRC; probably
> > > > massively bit-rotted since then. I also gave a talk at Cauldron 2013
> > > > about global state in the compiler (with a view to gcc-as-a-shared-
> > > > library); likewise I expect much of the ideas there to be out-of-date);
> > > > for libgccjit I went with a different approach
Thank you,
Giuliano.
