forked from llvm/llvm-project
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Switch builtin strings to use string tables (llvm#118734)
The Clang binary (and any binary linking Clang as a library), when built using PIE, ends up with a pretty shocking number of dynamic relocations to apply to the executable image: roughly 400k. Each of these takes up binary space in the executable, and perhaps most interestingly takes start-up time to apply the relocations. The largest pattern I identified were the strings used to describe target builtins. The addresses of these string literals were stored into huge arrays, each one requiring a dynamic relocation. The way to avoid this is to design the target builtins to use a single large table of strings and offsets within the table for the individual strings. This switches the builtin management to such a scheme. This saves over 100k dynamic relocations by my measurement, an over 25% reduction. Just looking at byte size improvements, using the `bloaty` tool to compare a newly built `clang` binary to an old one: ``` FILE SIZE VM SIZE -------------- -------------- +1.4% +653Ki +1.4% +653Ki .rodata +0.0% +960 +0.0% +960 .text +0.0% +197 +0.0% +197 .dynstr +0.0% +184 +0.0% +184 .eh_frame +0.0% +96 +0.0% +96 .dynsym +0.0% +40 +0.0% +40 .eh_frame_hdr +114% +32 [ = ] 0 [Unmapped] +0.0% +20 +0.0% +20 .gnu.hash +0.0% +8 +0.0% +8 .gnu.version +0.9% +7 +0.9% +7 [LOAD #2 [R]] [ = ] 0 -75.4% -3.00Ki .relro_padding -16.1% -802Ki -16.1% -802Ki .data.rel.ro -27.3% -2.52Mi -27.3% -2.52Mi .rela.dyn -1.6% -2.66Mi -1.6% -2.66Mi TOTAL ``` We get a 16% reduction in the `.data.rel.ro` section, and nearly 30% reduction in `.rela.dyn` where those reloctaions are stored. This is also visible in my benchmarking of binary start-up overhead at least: ``` Benchmark 1: ./old_clang --version Time (mean ± σ): 17.6 ms ± 1.5 ms [User: 4.1 ms, System: 13.3 ms] Range (min … max): 14.2 ms … 22.8 ms 162 runs Benchmark 2: ./new_clang --version Time (mean ± σ): 15.5 ms ± 1.4 ms [User: 3.6 ms, System: 11.8 ms] Range (min … max): 12.4 ms … 20.3 ms 216 runs Summary './new_clang --version' ran 1.13 ± 0.14 times faster than './old_clang --version' ``` We get about 2ms faster `--version` runs. While there is a lot of noise in binary execution time, this delta is pretty consistent, and represents over 10% improvement. This is particularly interesting to me because for very short source files, repeatedly starting the `clang` binary is actually the dominant cost. For example, `configure` scripts running against the `clang` compiler are slow in large part because of binary start up time, not the time to process the actual inputs to the compiler. ---- This PR implements the string tables using `constexpr` code and the existing macro system. I understand that the builtins are moving towards a TableGen model, and if complete that would provide more options for modeling this. Unfortunately, that migration isn't complete, and even the parts that are migrated still rely on the ability to break out of the TableGen model and directly expand an X-macro style `BUILTIN(...)` textually. I looked at trying to complete the move to TableGen, but it would both require the difficult migration of the remaining targets, and solving some tricky problems with how to move away from any macro-based expansion. I was also able to find a reasonably clean and effective way of doing this with the existing macros and some `constexpr` code that I think is clean enough to be a pretty good intermediate state, and maybe give a good target for the eventual TableGen solution. I was also able to factor the macros into set of consistent patterns that avoids a significant regression in overall boilerplate.
- Loading branch information
Showing
48 changed files
with
606 additions
and
309 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.