Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Evaluate using LLVM BOLT for providing better packages performance #2996

Open
zamazan4ik opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Evaluate using LLVM BOLT for providing better packages performance #2996

zamazan4ik opened this issue Nov 12, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@zamazan4ik
Copy link

Hello.

According to the Facebook Research Paper (https://research.facebook.com/publications/bolt-a-practical-binary-optimizer-for-data-centers-and-beyond/), LLVM BOLT (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/bolt/README.md) helps with achieving better performance for various packages like compilers and interpreters. I think it would be a good idea to enable LLVM BOLT for some packages to deliver faster binaries (or the possibility to recompile binaries with BOLT in an easier way) for users in Clear Linux since Clear Linux is all about performance.

Here I got some examples of how LLVM BOLT is already integrated into other projects:

So at least for the projects above LLVM BOLT effects are tested and some preparations are already done in the upstream projects. In this case, it should be easier to enable BOLT for these packages.

For some projects right now there is ongoing work on integrating LLVM BOLT into the build scripts:

More about LLVM BOLT performance results for other projects can be found in:

More information about the topic can be found here: https://github.com/zamazan4ik/awesome-pgo

I don't create an issue per project (like "Enable BOLT for Clang", "Enable BOLT for GCC", etc.) since I think first we need to discuss the approach. If we agree with enabling BOLT, then we can create an additional issue (and use this issue as a BOLT meta issue).

@fenrus75
Copy link
Contributor

fenrus75 commented Nov 12, 2023 via email

@zamazan4ik
Copy link
Author

Thanks a lot for such valuable insights! I think we could leave the issue open, so when will be some progress on the topic - we can track it here.

@fenrus75
Copy link
Contributor

fenrus75 commented Nov 12, 2023 via email

@aaupov
Copy link

aaupov commented Nov 12, 2023

Hi there,

Please report the cases of invalid output through LLVM issue tracker so we can address them: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/new?labels=BOLT&assignees=aaupov&title=[BOLT].

Also interested to hear about your alternative solution, waiting for news coverage!

We have been looking at bolt for... quite some time, and even did a series of prototypes of things similar or prototype new optimizations inside bolt. Bolt has some logistical issues to use it well ---- but what makes it slightly messy for us is that it still at times creates invalid output. BUT -- we will be doing something bolt-like in the very near future (we're finishing up final pieces of it right now) that, while not bolt level, should get close, but with the logistics solved for a distro and without the risk of invalid output... We want to get this widely deployed in the OS still this year :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants