Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization infrastructure

From: Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Fangrui Song <maskray@google.com>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>,
	andreyknvl@gmail.com, dvyukov@google.com, elver@google.com,
	johannes.berg@intel.com, oberpar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization infrastructure
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 04:43:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGG=3QW9W0H-FUt2bCAf2EbRqNa5bXv5-RqYCc8guKX=4C1KPA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YMczJGPsxSWNgJMG@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 3:45 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 02:39:41AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > I understand that the compilers actually generates radically different
> > > instrumentation for the various cases, but essentially they're all
> > > collecting (function/branch) arcs.
> > >
> > That's true, but there's no one format for profiling data that's
> > usable between all compilers. I'm not even sure there's a good way to
> > translate between, say, gcov and llvm's format. To make matters more
> > complicated, each compiler's format is tightly coupled to a specific
> > version of that compiler. And depending on *how* the data is collected
> > (e.g. sampling or instrumentation), it may not give us the full
> > benefit of FDO/PGO.
>
> I'm thinking that something simple like:
>
> struct arc {
>         u64     from;
>         u64     to;
>         u64     nr;
>         u64     cntrs[0];
> };
>
> goes a very long way. Stick a header on that says how large cntrs[] is,
> and some other data (like load offset and whatnot) and you should be
> good.
>
> Combine that with the executable image (say /proc/kcore) to recover
> what's @from (call, jmp or conditional branch) and I'm thinking one
> ought to be able to construct lots of useful data.
>
> I've also been led to believe that the KCOV data format is not in fact
> dependent on which toolchain is used.
>
Awesome! I await your RFC on both the gcc and clang mailing lists.

-bw

> > > I'm thinking it might be about time to build _one_ infrastructure for
> > > that and define a kernel arc format and call it a day.
> > >
> > That may be nice, but it's a rather large request.
>
> Given GCOV just died, perhaps you can look at what KCOV does and see if
> that can be extended to do as you want. KCOV is actively used and
> we actually tripped over all the fun little noinstr bugs at the time.