Where do I start if I would like help improve GHC compilation times?
Alfredo Di Napoli
alfredo.dinapoli at gmail.com
Mon Apr 10 14:54:26 UTC 2017
thanks a ton for the invaluable pointers. I’m now in the
“I-dunno-what-I-am-doing” mode banging SCC annotations like there is no
tomorrow, trying to spot any chance for some low-hanging-fruit algorithmic
improvement (like using a sequence instead of a list, etc), and will come
back to your suggestions as I will face the inevitable dead-end wall :D
On 10 April 2017 at 01:54, Niklas Hambüchen <mail at nh2.me> wrote:
> I have some suggestions for low hanging fruits in this effort.
> 1. Make ghc print more statistics on what it spending time on
> When I did the linking investigation recently
> I noticed (with strace) that there are lots of interesting syscalls
> being made that you might not expect. For example, each time TH is used,
> shared libraries are loaded, and to determine the shared library paths,
> ghc shells out to `gcc --print-file-name`. Each such invocation takes 20
> ms on my system, and I have 1000 invocations in my build. That's 20
> seconds (out of 2 minutes build time) just asking gcc for paths.
> I recommend that for every call to an external GHC measures how long
> that call took, so that it can be asked to print a summary when it's done.
> That might give us lots of interesting things to optimize. For example,
> This would have made the long linker times totally obvious.
> At the end, I would love to know for each compilation (both one-shot as
> used in ghc's build system, and `ghc --make`):
> * What programs did it invoke and how long did they take
> * What files did it read and how long did that take
> * How long did it take to read all the `.hi` files in `ghc --make`
> * High level time summary (parsing, typechecking, codegen, .hi files, etc)
> That way we'll know at least what is slow, and don't have to resort to
> strace every time in order to obtain this basic answer.
> 2. Investigate if idiotic syscalls are being done and how much
> There's this concept I call "idiotic syscalls", which are syscalls of
> which you know from before that they won't contribute anything
> productive. For example, if you give a linker N many `-L` flags (library
> dirs) and M many `-l` flags (library names to link), it will try to
> `stat()` or `open()` N*M many files, out of which most are total
> rubbish, because we typically know what library is in what dir.
> Example: You pass `-L/usr/lib/opencv -L/usr/lib/imagemagick
> -L/usr/lib/blas -lopencv -limagemagick -lblas`. Then you you will get
> things like `open("/usr/lib/opencv/libimagemagick.so") = ENOENT` which
> makes no sense and obviously that file doesn't exist. This is a problem
> with the general "search path" concept; same happens for running
> executables searching through $PATH. Yes, nonexistent file opens fail
> fast, but in my typical ghc invocation I get millions of them (and we
> should at least measure how much time is wasted on them), and they
> clutter the strace output and make the real problems harder to investigate.
> We should check if we can create ways to give pass those files that do
> 3. Add pure TemplateHaskell
> It is well known that TH is a problem for incremental compilation
> because it can have side effects and we must therefore be more
> conservative about when to recompile; when you see a `[TH]` in your `ghc
> --make` output, it's likely that time again.
> I believe this could be avoided by adding a variant of TH that forbids
> the use of the `runIO` function, and can thus not have side effects.
> Most TH does not need side effects, for example any form of code
> generation based on other data types (lenses, instances for whatever).
> If that was made "pure TH", we would not have to recompile when inputs
> to our TH functions change.
> Potentially this could even be determined automatically instead of
> adding a new variant of TH like was done for typed TH `$$()`, simply by
> inspecting what's in the TH and if we can decide there's no `runIO` in
> there, mark it as clean, otherwise as tainted.
> 4. Build ghc with `ghc --make` if possible
> This one might be controversial or impossible (others can likely tell
> us). Most Haskell code is built with `ghc --make`, not with the one-shot
> compilation system + make or Hadrian as as done in GHC's build system.
> Weirdly, often `ghc --make` scales much worse and has much worse
> incremental recompilation times than the one-shot mode, which doesn't
> make sense given that it has no process creation overhead, can do much
> better caching etc. I believe that if ghc or large parts of it (e.g.
> stage2) itself was built with `--make`, we would magically see --make
> become very good, simply we make the right people (GHC devs) suffer
> through it daily :D. I expect from this the solution of the `-j`
> slowness, GHC overhead reduction, faster interface file loads and so on.
> These are some ideas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs