Hi Morten, Something else just occurred to me: can you share your EngineBuilder configuration lines? (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1EngineBuilder.html) In particular - are you explicitly setting the optimization level? The old JIT may have had a different default. - Lang. Sent from my iPad> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:54 PM, Jim Grosbach via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I agree with Lang and Keno here. This is both unexpected and very interesting. Given the differences in defaults between the two, I would have expected the new JIT to have better performance but longer compile times. That you are seeing the opposite implies there is something very wrong and I'm very interested to help figure out what it is. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Keno, >> >> I am talking about runtime. The performance of the generated machine code. Not the time it takes to lower the IR to machine code. >> >> We typically only JIT once (taking a few secs) and then run the generated machine code for hours. So the JIT time (IR -> machine code) doesn't impact us. >> >> Cheers >> Morten >> >>> On 05/02/16 15:58, Keno Fischer wrote: >>> Actually, reading over all of this again, I realize I may have made the wrong statement. The runtime regressions we see in julia are actually regressions in how long LLVM itself takes to do the compilation (but since it happens at run time in the JIT case, I think of it as a regression in our running time). We have only noticed occasional regressions in the performance of the generated code (which we are in the process of fixing). Which kind of regression are you talking about, time taken by LLVM or time taken by the LLVM-generated code? >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> On 4 February 2016 at 22:48, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev >>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> > Hi Rafael, >>>> > >>>> > Not easily (llc). >>>> > >>>> > Is there a way to make MCJit not use the large code model when JIT'ing? >>>> > >>>> >>>> I think Davide started adding support for the small code model. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Rafael >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160205/5e0a23aa/attachment.html>
On 5 February 2016 at 00:13, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> In particular - are you explicitly setting the optimization level? The old > JIT may have had a different default.Did we change what you had to do to set the CPU at some point, or am I misremembering that? If the old JIT automatically went for -march=native but the new one doesn't that could explain the slowdown. Tim.
Hi Lang,
> can you share your EngineBuilder configuration lines?
Sure.
The 3.5.2 version use:
llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee llvm::EngineBuilder(module)
.setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT)
.setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive)
.create();
module->setDataLayout(ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout());
And the 3.7.1 version use:
llvm::EngineBuilder builder(move(modulePtr));
builder.setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT);
builder.setErrorStr(&error);
builder.setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive);
llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee = builder.create();
module->setDataLayout(*ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout());
Cheers
Morten
On 05/02/16 19:13, Lang Hames wrote:> Hi Morten,
>
> Something else just occurred to me: can you share your EngineBuilder
> configuration lines?
> (http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1EngineBuilder.html)
>
> In particular - are you explicitly setting the optimization level? The
> old JIT may have had a different default.
>
> - Lang.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:54 PM, Jim Grosbach via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Lang and Keno here. This is both unexpected and very
>> interesting. Given the differences in defaults between the two, I
>> would have expected the new JIT to have better performance but longer
>> compile times. That you are seeing the opposite implies there is
>> something very wrong and I'm very interested to help figure out
what
>> it is.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Keno,
>>>
>>> I am talking about runtime. The performance of the generated
machine
>>> code. Not the time it takes to lower the IR to machine code.
>>>
>>> We typically only JIT once (taking a few secs) and then run the
>>> generated machine code for hours. So the JIT time (IR -> machine
>>> code) doesn't impact us.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Morten
>>>
>>> On 05/02/16 15:58, Keno Fischer wrote:
>>>> Actually, reading over all of this again, I realize I may have
made
>>>> the wrong statement. The runtime regressions we see in julia
are
>>>> actually regressions in how long LLVM itself takes to do the
>>>> compilation (but since it happens at run time in the JIT case,
I
>>>> think of it as a regression in our running time). We have only
>>>> noticed occasional regressions in the performance of the
generated
>>>> code (which we are in the process of fixing). Which kind of
>>>> regression are you talking about, time taken by LLVM or time
taken
>>>> by the LLVM-generated code?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Rafael Espíndola
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4 February 2016 at 22:48, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev
>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Rafael,
>>>> >
>>>> > Not easily (llc).
>>>> >
>>>> > Is there a way to make MCJit not use the large code
model
>>>> when JIT'ing?
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I think Davide started adding support for the small code
model.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Rafael
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160208/47292485/attachment.html>
Hi all, Can someone also explain how to configure MCJIT to generate code for native target (like clang's -march=native)? Thanks, Paweł On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:01 AM Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Hi Lang, > > > > can you share your EngineBuilder configuration lines? > > Sure. > > The 3.5.2 version use: > > llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee > llvm::EngineBuilder(module) > .setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT) > .setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive) > .create(); > > module->setDataLayout(ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout()); > > And the 3.7.1 version use: > > llvm::EngineBuilder builder(move(modulePtr)); > > builder.setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT); > builder.setErrorStr(&error); > builder.setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive); > > llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee = builder.create(); > > module->setDataLayout(*ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout()); > > Cheers > > Morten > > > On 05/02/16 19:13, Lang Hames wrote: > > Hi Morten, > > Something else just occurred to me: can you share your EngineBuilder > configuration lines? ( > http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1EngineBuilder.html) > > In particular - are you explicitly setting the optimization level? The old > JIT may have had a different default. > > - Lang. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:54 PM, Jim Grosbach via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I agree with Lang and Keno here. This is both unexpected and very > interesting. Given the differences in defaults between the two, I would > have expected the new JIT to have better performance but longer compile > times. That you are seeing the opposite implies there is something very > wrong and I'm very interested to help figure out what it is. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Keno, > > I am talking about runtime. The performance of the generated machine code. > Not the time it takes to lower the IR to machine code. > > We typically only JIT once (taking a few secs) and then run the generated > machine code for hours. So the JIT time (IR -> machine code) doesn't impact > us. > > Cheers > Morten > > On 05/02/16 15:58, Keno Fischer wrote: > > Actually, reading over all of this again, I realize I may have made the > wrong statement. The runtime regressions we see in julia are actually > regressions in how long LLVM itself takes to do the compilation (but since > it happens at run time in the JIT case, I think of it as a regression in > our running time). We have only noticed occasional regressions in the > performance of the generated code (which we are in the process of fixing). > Which kind of regression are you talking about, time taken by LLVM or time > taken by the LLVM-generated code? > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Rafael Espíndola <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > wrote: > >> On 4 February 2016 at 22:48, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Hi Rafael, >> > >> > Not easily (llc). >> > >> > Is there a way to make MCJit not use the large code model when JIT'ing? >> > >> >> I think Davide started adding support for the small code model. >> >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160208/1d71de45/attachment.html>
Thanks Morten, I'll check this out and confirm that these optimization options are being plumbed through as expected. Were you able to produce any test-cases that demonstrate the slow-down in the end? - Lang. On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Morten Brodersen < Morten.Brodersen at constrainttec.com> wrote:> Hi Lang, > > > can you share your EngineBuilder configuration lines? > > Sure. > > The 3.5.2 version use: > > llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee > llvm::EngineBuilder(module) > .setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT) > .setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive) > .create(); > > module->setDataLayout(ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout()); > > And the 3.7.1 version use: > > llvm::EngineBuilder builder(move(modulePtr)); > > builder.setEngineKind(llvm::EngineKind::JIT); > builder.setErrorStr(&error); > builder.setOptLevel(llvm::CodeGenOpt::Aggressive); > > llvm::ExecutionEngine* ee = builder.create(); > > module->setDataLayout(*ee->getTargetMachine()->getDataLayout()); > > Cheers > Morten > > > On 05/02/16 19:13, Lang Hames wrote: > > Hi Morten, > > Something else just occurred to me: can you share your EngineBuilder > configuration lines? ( > <http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1EngineBuilder.html> > http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1EngineBuilder.html) > > In particular - are you explicitly setting the optimization level? The old > JIT may have had a different default. > > - Lang. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:54 PM, Jim Grosbach via llvm-dev < > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I agree with Lang and Keno here. This is both unexpected and very > interesting. Given the differences in defaults between the two, I would > have expected the new JIT to have better performance but longer compile > times. That you are seeing the opposite implies there is something very > wrong and I'm very interested to help figure out what it is. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Keno, > > I am talking about runtime. The performance of the generated machine code. > Not the time it takes to lower the IR to machine code. > > We typically only JIT once (taking a few secs) and then run the generated > machine code for hours. So the JIT time (IR -> machine code) doesn't impact > us. > > Cheers > Morten > > On 05/02/16 15:58, Keno Fischer wrote: > > Actually, reading over all of this again, I realize I may have made the > wrong statement. The runtime regressions we see in julia are actually > regressions in how long LLVM itself takes to do the compilation (but since > it happens at run time in the JIT case, I think of it as a regression in > our running time). We have only noticed occasional regressions in the > performance of the generated code (which we are in the process of fixing). > Which kind of regression are you talking about, time taken by LLVM or time > taken by the LLVM-generated code? > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Rafael Espíndola < > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 4 February 2016 at 22:48, Morten Brodersen via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > Hi Rafael, >> > >> > Not easily (llc). >> > >> > Is there a way to make MCJit not use the large code model when JIT'ing? >> > >> >> I think Davide started adding support for the small code model. >> >> Cheers, >> Rafael >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160212/5354b6dd/attachment.html>