I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke, @MichalStrehovsky, @jkotas
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Native AOT performance is already excellent today. I have been testing it for over a year and it has been fast and stable in this timeframe. To track the performance, I made an early NativeAOT implementation at TechEmpower Benchmarks (named appmpower). One thing I noticed while upgrading last week to .NET 7 at the same time as the asp.net core middleware implementation in the TechEmpower Benchmarks is that the non AOT implementation of the standard middleware plaintext test has improved from 5,703,769 responses per second in .NET 6 to 5,954,942 in .NET 7. My AOT middleware implementation has remained identical (5,024,661 vs 5,026,387 responses per second). I did some testing locally and the whole difference seems due to the <TieredPGO>true</TieredPGO> project option with according parameters in the docker file of the standard asp.net core middleware implementation. I guess this is a benefit of generating IL, so not sure whether AOT could still improve in this respect or whether other options exist to mimic this performance advantage of TieredPGO in AOT compilation. In any case, the TieredPGO implementation in .NET 7 has created some excellent performance improvement for non AOT projects.

whether other options exist to mimic this performance advantage of TieredPGO in AOT compilation

The AOT code generation can benefit from profile data in similar way as TieredPGO. It requires the profile data to be collected ahead of time and passed to the AOT toolchain. The support is partially implemented - for example, see

Tagging subscribers to 'linkable-framework': @eerhardt, @vitek-karas, @LakshanF, @sbomer, @joperezr
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Is there any doc or guide in the runtime repo, where people can learn how to test NativeAOT with try different csproj switches, see what is there in the native file, usages of RD.XML file, and suggest what can we trim something like that!? So that people can file the issues that they face using NativeAOT which will help the team!

The trimming options are the same for any trimming (AOT or not). Good starting point is here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/trimming/trimming-options?pivots=dotnet-7-0. For AOT specifically - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/native-aot/ (not trimming related, but stripping symbols for example does have a large size impact).

We strongly suggest to not use rd.xml files anymore. For one they're not recognized by anything but the NativeAOT compiler, so solving trimming with rd.xml in general is not recommended because it will not work for normal trimming (non AOT).

The tools to inspect size and roots are still mostly missing or are not very user friendly - we have a tracking issue here: #78671

With trimming based on illink (so PublishTrimmed=true but non-AOT) you can use https://github.com/dotnet/linker/tree/main/src/analyzer to see what was kept and to some extent why.
Or you can use this tool: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/tree/main/src/coreclr/tools/aot/DependencyGraphViewer which works for all (illink and AOT), but it is somewhat less capable (on other hand it has a UI).

The AOT compiler can also generate a map file, but I'm not familiar with the details - @MichalStrehovsky should be able to help.

Hey @vitek-karas, Thanks for the link and write-up that really helped to get started.

I was already aware of the first 2 links which are part of public documentation. I had played with those options earlier before .NET 7 release. It was working fine.

What I am looking for today is let's say If I created a native executable with NativeAOT today, I want to inspect the executable and see what types have been kept and what has been removed. So that while testing NativeAOT things in the sample project, if I found something which could be removed, but did not get removed, then I can report that thing in GH and can have attention to that issue, which will eventually help team to see why it not removed and see the possibilities.

Or not even inspecting the executable, maybe some tool to which I can pass my project or solution path which will publish that and will create a report of types that were removed and which weren't removed because of some reason or annotations.

Looking at your description, I guess Linker Analyzer is doing that stuff, but I see examples of Android projects, and also there are some intermediate steps to generate the report. I hope that works with the normal console applications as well.

Not sure do the team have any plans to have these tools as dotnet CLI commands so that individual people can inspect their projects and analyze them. I will have a look at DependencyGraphViewer as well. Why these tools are soo under in the repositories, it's very hard to find those!

Currently the tools are somewhat simple - partly because we didn't need anything more complicated and partly because it turns out to be really difficult do create something more easy to use (@sbomer was looking into something recently in this area).
Right now what I remember we did so far is two use cases:

• I know (somehow, noticed and so on) that the trimmed app contains type BigFeature and I want to find out why it was not trimmed away. For this the DependencyGraphViewer is probably the best tool right now. It's still somewhat cumbersome, but it will show you all of the necessary information (in combination with source code).
• The app is too big - I want to find out what makes it big. This is what the map/stat file mentioned above can probably help with (I know @eerhardt was able to use it that way). @MichalStrehovsky or @eerhardt would know more.

Why these tools are soo under in the repositories, it's very hard to find those!

Mainly because we didn't spend any real effort on these tools. They grew organically as one-off utils somebody wrote to help with certain task and we improved on them over time, but so far we didn't really try to make them useful outside of the small group of people working on the product. That's basically what #78671 is about.

Ohh understood. Thanks for the info @vitek-karas, it really helps! I will give it a try to DependencyGraphViewer to see what it shows! Hopefully going forward these utils tools will be shipped as CLI tools to help the border audience! :) 🙌

If you have a specific scenario in mind, could you please describe it in #78671? Or if you run into something later on, please let us know there. As mentioned above, so far this has been almost exclusively based on internal needs, so having others described what they need would be very helpful.

Not any scenario as of now, but for sure I will log them inside that thread! I am gonna play with NativeAOT console apps and will see how far we can go.
Thanks for all the info @vitek-karas! 👍🏻

BTW a quick question when using <PublishAot>true</PublishAot> for the AOT scenario, what are the trimmer options are selected? I just created a small console application with Hello world and published it as AOT. I can see the file size is almost 3 KB in size. Can I use trimmer options to reduce its size? Or are the trimmer options available when using PublishAOT?

When I try hello world (for win-x64) with NativeAOT it produces an executable which is 4.8 MB in size (.NET 7). I don't know where you got a working 3kb executable from (honestly if we could do 3kb for hello world by default, we would probably be magicians).

Almost all publicly documented trimming options should work with PublishAot=true as well. The things which will make the biggest impact out of the box are probably some feature switches (https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/workflow/trimming/feature-switches.md) and turning off some NativeAOT features (like reflection), but each will get you to a potentially unsupported and untested waters. Also - it's probably doable for hello world, but any real world app would quickly run into issues if you disable more functionality. But it depends, maybe it would work out for you.

yess, I got under 3 MB (don't worry you guys are already awesome btw). Following is the screenshot.

Ohh, thanks for the feature switch doc link. I will give it a try with those now! There are so many options here for AOT and trimming, sometimes it confuses a lot! Yeah, I know we are in the early stages of AOT and trimming stuff, this is okkkishhh as of now!

One more issue I faced, is that I wanted to generate that DGML file to see in the viewer. I added <IlcGenerateDgmlFile>true</IlcGenerateDgmlFile> this csproj, but I don't see any file generated other than the files which you see in the screenshot! Is there something changed recently in this OR am I missing something here?

Following is the csproj screenshot.

I wanted to generate that DGML file to see in the viewer

DGML files are generated under obj directory. Run dir /s *.dgml.xml to find them.

Ohh thanks @jkotas, do you think it will be helpful to mention that in that README? I can create PR for that!

@ShreyasJejurkar sure - looking forward to the PR 😉

Please have a look #80115 @vitek-karas @jkotas

Thank you!

@ShreyasJejurkar - I've written up what I have been doing to analyze size in AOT apps here: #78671 (comment).

That is awesome @eerhardt, exactly on point! I will give it a try now.
(In future--> ) I really wish (hope so, and I will try also) steps and tools like this should be dotnet CLI tools to help users to inspect their project for AOT scenarios, that way they can get the idea of what is getting stripped off, what is getting included, their % of individual method size to the overall app size ( just like we do it for perf analysis).

btw @eerhardt right now you have posted those steps in that thread, what do you think would be a good place to have that writeup as part of the repo documentation? So that in case future if someone asks, we can point that user to that single place! Having that in that thread is ok as well! :)

what do you think would be a good place to have that writeup as part of the repo documentation?

It wouldn't hurt putting it somewhere in a markdown file in the repo.

My hope is that official support will come for tooling in this area, and we can point users to that.

@eerhardt Yeah. I will see where we can put that. Or if I get the direction on where to put that, I will raise PR for that.

Moreover, till the time and tools don't get official, I am planning to create a WebUI where the user can select mstat file, then the app will process that will show types, methods, and other things in a table grid format. The user can filter sort and can do a bunch of operations on that (like in your case) you do that filter by namespace and sort by size, those kinds of stuff. Do you think will that be helpful to you? This will be my side project of course, where I would get a chance to try out blazor as well 😅and also it will add value to your (including people who are working on this) workflow!

Following are some features, I am thinking about.

1. Show types, methods, and other useful stuff from the assembly. (grid)
2. Show their size and contribution of their size to overall size (in percentage format) (grid)
3. Filter by Namespace, user assembly (hide types from System., Microsoft.) (checkbox filter)
4. Maybe export all this info into a downloadable excel file for further analysis or for sharing? (I need to do an analysis is there any way I can embed generated info into the URL, just like https://sharplab.io does, so that users can share the URL with others and the given info will populate)

Do you think will that be helpful to you?

Absolutely, this sounds great! The thing I found about size investigations is that one often wants to be able to look at the information from multiple angles to get something actionable. The more tools in the arsenal, the better.

One thing I would point out about mstat is that it's versioned - the version of the format is stored as the assembly version. The version in .NET 7 is 1.1 (version 1.0 was short-lived and no need to worry about it). Have the tool check that the major version is 1 to future proof it. If major version changes, it means there were fundamental changes made to the format that are not backwards compatible (and the tool would likely crash trying to parse it). If minor version changes, it just means there could be more info that the tool cannot interpret. That's fine.

Thanks, @MichalStrehovsky for the reply.

The thing I found about size investigations is that one often wants to be able to look at the information from multiple angles to get something actionable

Sure. I got some time to work on the tool, here is the repo link https://github.com/ShreyasJejurkar/MstatReader (Once I get some basic func working, I will deploy this to github pages and will share URL). In README, I posted the screenshot that the tool has. I know the design is not good. I will work on that as well, I will have look for a minimal table feature-rich design because the main goal of mine here is to extract value out of *.mstat file as much as I can, and represent it in the table with all available filters and grouping.

One thing I would point out about mstat is that it's versioned - the version of the format is stored as the assembly version. The version in .NET 7 is 1.1 (version 1.0 was short-lived and no need to worry about it). Have the tool check that the major version is 1 to future proof it. If major version changes, it means there were fundamental changes made to the format that is not backward compatible (and the tool would likely crash trying to parse it). If minor version changes, it just means there could be more info that the tool cannot interpret. That's fine

I understand this, but not sure if will this be problematic for me as of now. If you look in my repo, the MstatReader.Lib is the code that you have in the gist file (https://gist.github.com/MichalStrehovsky/2c7cb3d623c7f8901541914dab04238d) in refactor format I mean. I will build all filters there and will have that exposed to WebUI to call. I am getting basic type, and methods info based on your code, which I am showing in WebUI, built some filters as well in the extension file to exclude the System., Microsoft. types, will build more. But this is initial development that I just wanted to highlight!

We're now done with fundamental improvements and we're meeting all our stage1 goals, so I'm going to close this as completed. We can continue to address specific problems as we find them.