================
@@ -592,10 +599,15 @@ void preprocessUnreachableBlocks(FlowFunction &Func) {
/// Decide if stale profile matching can be applied for a given function.
/// Currently we skip inference for (very) large instances and for instances
/// having "unexpected" control flow (e.g., having no sink basic blocks).
-bool canApplyInference(const FlowFunction &Func) {
+bool canApplyInference(const FlowFunction &Func,
+ const yaml::bolt::BinaryFunctionProfile &YamlBF) {
if (Func.Blocks.size() > opts::StaleMatchingMaxFuncSize)
return false;
+ if ((double)Func.MatchedExecCount / YamlBF.ExecCount >=
+ opts::MatchedProfileThreshold / 100.0)
+ return false;
----------------
shawbyoung wrote:
I’m leaning towards the block count heuristic now. I think the 1M and 4x1K exec
count block case is likely pretty common – I imagine functions with loops would
look a lot like this. Having some blocks matched exactly would suggest to me
that there would likely be a reasonable amount of similarity between the
profiled function and existing function relationally, which block coldness
likely doesn’t have an outsized bearing on. I think having a reasonably high
threshold for matched blocks would conservatively allow us to drop functions in
high discrepancy – I’ll test this on a production binary.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95156
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
