There is one thing that I think is important to bear in mind when discussing inlining, especially in the context of Clojure. This is that once a function has been inlined, you can no longer update the definition of that function in the REPL and have that update the behaviour of functions which use it, unless you recompile those as well. This is not a criticism of course, it’s just part of the natural tension between dynamism and performance.
Does that not happen automatically? I know there are contexts in which jvm will deoptimize inlining and recompile, like in response to class loading that causes a call site that was previously provably monomorphic to no longer be.
No, it doesn't. In JVM Clojure's case, the vars are usually compiled to the moral equivalent of a global variable holding a pointer to a function. This allows you to update the function if the developer redefines it in the REPL, but it comes at a performance cost (the JVM can't inline it or otherwise optimise it). Clojure also allows you to compile with "direct linking", e.g. for production deployments, where you know you're unlikely to be wanting to dynamically update the code. In those cases defns are compiled down to static methods which call each other - much faster since the JVM can perform its magic with them, but you can't update them at the REPL.
I'm unsure exactly how jank works WRT this tradeoff, but the article makes it sound like it's closer to the direct linking version, but with the inlining etc being done by jank rather than the JVM. I don't know if this is only for AOT or also in JIT cases.
> Clojure's dynamism is granted by a great deal of both polymorphism and indirection, but this means LLVM has very few optimization opportunities when it's dealing with the LLVM IR from jank.
In my mind, what is happening here is you lower Clojure code into LLVM, with a bunch of runtime calls (e.g. your `jank::runtime::dynamic_call`) (e.g. LLVM invoking the runtime over a C ABI).
If that's true, are there any optimizations that LLVM helps out with? Perhaps like DCE? I can't tell immediately, curious about the answer
(question is obviously about the pre-IR state of things)
The article talks about inlining a two-arity call to clojure.core/max to instead be an explicit call to cpp/jank.runtime.max, eliminating the unnecessary argument count matching and recursion portions of the Clojure function.
It also mentions that in Clang the runtime max function will itself be inlined, so that's something LLVM ("the LLVM project", anyway) is still doing - and beyond that, as written this IR is likely to leave behind plenty of opportunities for LLVM to do the things it's good at: DCE, load/store optimisation, constant propagation, etc. And register allocation.
The jank::runtime::max call is itself complex: it's got to type check its arguments and work out what to actually do based on the two types; if parts of these tests are done before the inlined call to max there's a fair chance that LLVM will be able to eliminate their repetition and slim it all down a long way. In the fibonnaci example the fact that a previous test will have likely identified whether the argument is an int or something else should hopefully carry over for ::lte, ::sub, and ::add and simplify those down to just the single operator call - but sadly I suspect it won't at least for the addition, because the recursive call will lose the information that the return value when called with a tagged integer is always a tagged integer.
A future optimisation might be to specialise for unboxed types: far more potential speed improvement over pointer tagging, and IMO quite amenable to analysis with the Jank IR (:metadata tag functions as specialised for <type> with the new entry point, if a function only calls specalised functions (and itself) it too can be specialised, and a heuristic to determine if specialisation gains enough to sacrifice space for it).
> we're using it to optimize jank to compete with the JVM
The JVM gets a lot of hate, but that is a very high bar. The JVM is a serious piece of kit. I hope Jank succeeds. I'd love to use it in real projects.
Great article, as always.
There is one thing that I think is important to bear in mind when discussing inlining, especially in the context of Clojure. This is that once a function has been inlined, you can no longer update the definition of that function in the REPL and have that update the behaviour of functions which use it, unless you recompile those as well. This is not a criticism of course, it’s just part of the natural tension between dynamism and performance.
Does that not happen automatically? I know there are contexts in which jvm will deoptimize inlining and recompile, like in response to class loading that causes a call site that was previously provably monomorphic to no longer be.
No, it doesn't. In JVM Clojure's case, the vars are usually compiled to the moral equivalent of a global variable holding a pointer to a function. This allows you to update the function if the developer redefines it in the REPL, but it comes at a performance cost (the JVM can't inline it or otherwise optimise it). Clojure also allows you to compile with "direct linking", e.g. for production deployments, where you know you're unlikely to be wanting to dynamically update the code. In those cases defns are compiled down to static methods which call each other - much faster since the JVM can perform its magic with them, but you can't update them at the REPL.
I'm unsure exactly how jank works WRT this tradeoff, but the article makes it sound like it's closer to the direct linking version, but with the inlining etc being done by jank rather than the JVM. I don't know if this is only for AOT or also in JIT cases.
The natural question is why doesn't Jank use MLIR?
Hoping to understand this better:
> Clojure's dynamism is granted by a great deal of both polymorphism and indirection, but this means LLVM has very few optimization opportunities when it's dealing with the LLVM IR from jank.
In my mind, what is happening here is you lower Clojure code into LLVM, with a bunch of runtime calls (e.g. your `jank::runtime::dynamic_call`) (e.g. LLVM invoking the runtime over a C ABI).
If that's true, are there any optimizations that LLVM helps out with? Perhaps like DCE? I can't tell immediately, curious about the answer
(question is obviously about the pre-IR state of things)
The article talks about inlining a two-arity call to clojure.core/max to instead be an explicit call to cpp/jank.runtime.max, eliminating the unnecessary argument count matching and recursion portions of the Clojure function.
It also mentions that in Clang the runtime max function will itself be inlined, so that's something LLVM ("the LLVM project", anyway) is still doing - and beyond that, as written this IR is likely to leave behind plenty of opportunities for LLVM to do the things it's good at: DCE, load/store optimisation, constant propagation, etc. And register allocation.
The jank::runtime::max call is itself complex: it's got to type check its arguments and work out what to actually do based on the two types; if parts of these tests are done before the inlined call to max there's a fair chance that LLVM will be able to eliminate their repetition and slim it all down a long way. In the fibonnaci example the fact that a previous test will have likely identified whether the argument is an int or something else should hopefully carry over for ::lte, ::sub, and ::add and simplify those down to just the single operator call - but sadly I suspect it won't at least for the addition, because the recursive call will lose the information that the return value when called with a tagged integer is always a tagged integer.
A future optimisation might be to specialise for unboxed types: far more potential speed improvement over pointer tagging, and IMO quite amenable to analysis with the Jank IR (:metadata tag functions as specialised for <type> with the new entry point, if a function only calls specalised functions (and itself) it too can be specialised, and a heuristic to determine if specialisation gains enough to sacrifice space for it).