[GHC] #12781: Significantly higher allocation with INLINE vs NOINLINE

[GHC]

#12781: Significantly higher allocation with INLINE vs NOINLINE
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
        Reporter:  MikolajKonarski   |                Owner:
            Type:  bug               |               Status:  new
        Priority:  normal            |            Milestone:
       Component:  Compiler          |              Version:  8.0.1
      Resolution:                    |             Keywords:
Operating System:  Linux             |         Architecture:  x86_64
 Type of failure:  Runtime           |  (amd64)
  performance bug                    |            Test Case:
      Blocked By:                    |             Blocking:
 Related Tickets:  #12747 #12603     |  Differential Rev(s):
  #5775                              |
       Wiki Page:                    |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by simonpj):

 * cc: maurerl@…, pdownen@…, ariola@… (added)


Comment:

 Interesting.  I know exactly what is going on.

 With `NOINLINE dis` we get
 {{{
 dis = \p. let $w$j ww = blah
           in case p of
              -1#     -> $w$j (...)
              DEFAULT -> $w$j (..)

 go xs z = case xs of
             []     -> ...
             (y:ys) -> case dis y of () -> go ys z
 }}}
 Note that `$w$j` is a join point, so incurs no allocation cost.

 There is just one call to `dis` in the body of `go`.  So without the
 `NOINLINE dis`, the function `dis` inlines in the body of `go`.  But then
 we get something like
 {{{
 go xs z = case xs of
             [] -> ...
             (y:ys) -> let $w$j ww = blah
                        in case p of
                           -1#     -> case ($w$j (...)) of
                                         () -> go ys z
                           DEFAULT -> case ($w$j (...)) of
                                         () -> go yz z
 }}}
 Yikes!  `$w$j` is no longer a join point, so allocation goes up.

 Six months ago I would have felt sad. But today I feel happy.  In our
 paper [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/compiling-
 without-continuations/ Compiling without continuations], we explain how to
 ensure that join points are never destroyed.

 Moreover, Luke Maurer is well advanced on a full implementation in GHC.
 Luke, how is it going?  When will it land in GHC?  We need this!

 This ticket would make a lovely example to add to the paper, because it's
 a true "from the wild" example.

--
Ticket URL: <http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/12781#comment:5>
GHC <http://www.haskell.org/ghc/>
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler