blob: 854590753143307f47970fc096bea94c84468265 [file] [log] [blame]
Andrew Scull5e1ddfa2018-08-14 10:06:54 +01001//===- Threads.h ------------------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===//
2//
3// The LLVM Linker
4//
5// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
6// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
7//
8//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
9//
10// LLD supports threads to distribute workloads to multiple cores. Using
11// multicore is most effective when more than one core are idle. At the
12// last step of a build, it is often the case that a linker is the only
13// active process on a computer. So, we are naturally interested in using
14// threads wisely to reduce latency to deliver results to users.
15//
16// That said, we don't want to do "too clever" things using threads.
17// Complex multi-threaded algorithms are sometimes extremely hard to
18// reason about and can easily mess up the entire design.
19//
20// Fortunately, when a linker links large programs (when the link time is
21// most critical), it spends most of the time to work on massive number of
22// small pieces of data of the same kind, and there are opportunities for
23// large parallelism there. Here are examples:
24//
25// - We have hundreds of thousands of input sections that need to be
26// copied to a result file at the last step of link. Once we fix a file
27// layout, each section can be copied to its destination and its
28// relocations can be applied independently.
29//
30// - We have tens of millions of small strings when constructing a
31// mergeable string section.
32//
33// For the cases such as the former, we can just use parallelForEach
34// instead of std::for_each (or a plain for loop). Because tasks are
35// completely independent from each other, we can run them in parallel
36// without any coordination between them. That's very easy to understand
37// and reason about.
38//
39// For the cases such as the latter, we can use parallel algorithms to
40// deal with massive data. We have to write code for a tailored algorithm
41// for each problem, but the complexity of multi-threading is isolated in
42// a single pass and doesn't affect the linker's overall design.
43//
44// The above approach seems to be working fairly well. As an example, when
45// linking Chromium (output size 1.6 GB), using 4 cores reduces latency to
46// 75% compared to single core (from 12.66 seconds to 9.55 seconds) on my
47// Ivy Bridge Xeon 2.8 GHz machine. Using 40 cores reduces it to 63% (from
48// 12.66 seconds to 7.95 seconds). Because of the Amdahl's law, the
49// speedup is not linear, but as you add more cores, it gets faster.
50//
51// On a final note, if you are trying to optimize, keep the axiom "don't
52// guess, measure!" in mind. Some important passes of the linker are not
53// that slow. For example, resolving all symbols is not a very heavy pass,
54// although it would be very hard to parallelize it. You want to first
55// identify a slow pass and then optimize it.
56//
57//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
58
59#ifndef LLD_COMMON_THREADS_H
60#define LLD_COMMON_THREADS_H
61
62#include "llvm/Support/Parallel.h"
63#include <functional>
64
65namespace lld {
66
67extern bool ThreadsEnabled;
68
69template <typename R, class FuncTy> void parallelForEach(R &&Range, FuncTy Fn) {
70 if (ThreadsEnabled)
71 for_each(llvm::parallel::par, std::begin(Range), std::end(Range), Fn);
72 else
73 for_each(llvm::parallel::seq, std::begin(Range), std::end(Range), Fn);
74}
75
76inline void parallelForEachN(size_t Begin, size_t End,
77 std::function<void(size_t)> Fn) {
78 if (ThreadsEnabled)
79 for_each_n(llvm::parallel::par, Begin, End, Fn);
80 else
81 for_each_n(llvm::parallel::seq, Begin, End, Fn);
82}
83
84} // namespace lld
85
86#endif