Skip to content

JIT: fix regressions from inlining policy change #117492

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 11, 2025
Merged

JIT: fix regressions from inlining policy change #117492

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
12 changes: 10 additions & 2 deletions src/coreclr/jit/inlinepolicy.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1377,8 +1377,16 @@ void ExtendedDefaultPolicy::NoteInt(InlineObservation obs, int value)
}
else if (m_RootCompiler->fgHaveSufficientProfileWeights())
{
JITDUMP("Root has sufficient profile\n");
maxCodeSize = static_cast<unsigned>(JitConfig.JitExtDefaultPolicyMaxILRoot());
// For now we want to inline somewhat less aggressively in Tier1+Instr. We can reconsider
// when we have inlinee instrumentation. Otherwise we may lose profile data for key inlinees.
//
const bool isTier1Instr = m_RootCompiler->opts.IsInstrumentedAndOptimized();
JITDUMP("Root has sufficient profile%s\n",
isTier1Instr ? "; but we are not boosting max IL size for Tier1+Instr" : "");
if (!isTier1Instr)
{
maxCodeSize = static_cast<unsigned>(JitConfig.JitExtDefaultPolicyMaxILRoot());
}
}
else
{
Expand Down
Loading