llvm dev - Nov 2017 - [GlobalISel][AArch64] Toward flipping the switch for O0: Please give it a try!

Hi Quentin,

My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility.
The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of evaluation,
we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388.
I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over
nothing?

I’m wondering if since then on your side you did any testing around ABI
compatibility?
E.g. building software where you semi-randomly build some functions through
GlobalISel and some functions through DAGISel?

Thanks,

Kristof

On 8 Nov 2017, at 00:42, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

I’d like to resurrect this thread and ask if people are on board for enabling
this by default for AArch64 O0.


*** What Changed Since June? ***

- We added a way to describe the legalization actions for non-power-of-2
- We gave a tutorial that covers the best practices to target GlobalISel
- We improved the TableGen backend to reuse existing SDISel patterns
- We built and ran huge internal software with GISel
- We evaluated the performance of GISel and are confident things are in a good
shape (with https://reviews.llvm.org/D39034) and moving forward would look even
better (see the last LLVM Dev talk: GlobalISel: Present, Past, and Future when
it is available)


*** So What’s he Plan? ***

- Switch the default instruction selector to GISel for AArch64 at O0
- Enable the fallback path by default for AArch64 (with warnings enabled when
that path is hit)
- Provide a clang option to turn GISel off

What do you think?

Thanks,
-Quentin

On Jun 16, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

We had some internal discussions about flipping the default for O0 and we
concluded that we wanted to postpone it.


*** Why Is That? ***

We don’t want to send the wrong message that GlobalISel’s design is set in stone
and ready for broader adoption.
In particular,
1. The APIs are still evolving and can still possibly change significantly
2. The TableGen backend to reuse the existing SD patterns is still at its early
stage
3. We want to investigate closely the performance of global-isel (compile-time,
runtime, code size, fallbacks)

The rationale behind those items is that we want to minimize the pain of moving
forward for everybody. We also want the out-of-the-box experience to be pleasant
(like all/most of the tablegen patterns just work, we have documentation on how
to target a new backend, etc.) Finally, we want to gain confidence we are going
to be able to address the performance issues we have with the current design and
if not, derive a plan for that.

We purposely left out of the conversation what will be the right time and
requirements to flip the switch. We want to gather more data first. Your help
would be appreciated!


*** Short-Term Proposal ***

What we would like to do instead short-term is:
A. Repurpose or create an option “-aarch64-enable-global-isel-at-O” to enable
GISel with fallbacks and warnings enables (i.e., equivalent of -global-isel
-global-isel-abort=2)
B. Advertise this option in the next open source release to allow compiler
enthusiastic to try it and report problems
C. Have GISel always built so we can push thing in the right place,
MachineVerifier in mind, and stop doing some weird gymnastic

What do people think?


*** Your Help Is Needed ***

- Please share your experience in using the GISel APIs and how we can make them
better. Moving forward we’ll have those conversations on open source instead of
internally/with a narrower audience.
- Report any performance problem you identify
- Propose patches!

Cheers,
-Quentin



On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:


On Jun 14, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:

On 12 June 2017 at 18:54, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
Hi all,

I added a buildbot [1] running the test-suite with -O0 -global-isel. It runs
into the same 2 timeouts that I reported previously on this thread (paq8p and
scimark2). It would be nice to make it green before flipping the switch.


I did some more investigations on a machine similar to the one running the
buildbot. For paq8p and scimark2, I get these results for O0:

PAQ8p:
Fast isel: 666.344
Global isel: 731.384

SciMark2-C:
Fast isel: 463.908
Global isel: 496.22

The current timeout is 500s (so in this particular case we didn't hit it for
scimark2, and it ran successfully to completion). I don't think the
difference between FastISel and GlobalISel is too atrocious, so I would propose
increasing the timeout for these 2 benchmarks. I'm not sure if we can do
this on a per-bot basis, but I see some precedent for setting custom timeout
thresholds for various benchmarks on different architectures (sometimes with
comments that it's done so we can run O0 on that particular benchmark).

Something along these lines works:
https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/102547/

What do you guys think about this approach?

Looks reasonable to me.


Thanks,
Diana

PS: The buildbot is using the Makefiles because that's what our other
AArch64 test-suite bots use. Moving all of them to CMake is a transition for
another time.

_______________________________________________
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/20171113/fac9a9c2/attachment.html>

Hi Kristof,

> On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>
wrote:
> 
> Hi Quentin,
> 
> My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility.
> The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of
evaluation, we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue:
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388
<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388>.
> I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over
nothing?
No, you’re right. The problem with ABI is if you are consistently wrong, then
you won’t notice :).
> 
> I’m wondering if since then on your side you did any testing around ABI
compatibility?
> E.g. building software where you semi-randomly build some functions through
GlobalISel and some functions through DAGISel?
Justin will look into that. Clang has utility script for that utils/ABITest.

Given we will only be able to check iOS ABI, you may want to follow the same
kind of validation on your side.

I let you sync up with Justin for the method.

Cheers,
-Quentin
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kristof
> 
>> On 8 Nov 2017, at 00:42, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I’d like to resurrect this thread and ask if people are on board for
enabling this by default for AArch64 O0.
>> 
>> 
>> *** What Changed Since June? ***
>> 
>> - We added a way to describe the legalization actions for
non-power-of-2
>> - We gave a tutorial that covers the best practices to target
GlobalISel
>> - We improved the TableGen backend to reuse existing SDISel patterns
>> - We built and ran huge internal software with GISel
>> - We evaluated the performance of GISel and are confident things are in
a good shape (with https://reviews.llvm.org/D39034
<https://reviews.llvm.org/D39034>) and moving forward would look even
better (see the last LLVM Dev talk: GlobalISel: Present, Past, and Future when
it is available)
>> 
>> 
>> *** So What’s he Plan? ***
>> 
>> - Switch the default instruction selector to GISel for AArch64 at O0
>> - Enable the fallback path by default for AArch64 (with warnings
enabled when that path is hit)
>> - Provide a clang option to turn GISel off
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Quentin
>> 
>>> On Jun 16, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> We had some internal discussions about flipping the default for O0
and we concluded that we wanted to postpone it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *** Why Is That? ***
>>> 
>>> We don’t want to send the wrong message that GlobalISel’s design is
set in stone and ready for broader adoption.
>>> In particular,
>>> 1. The APIs are still evolving and can still possibly change
significantly
>>> 2. The TableGen backend to reuse the existing SD patterns is still
at its early stage
>>> 3. We want to investigate closely the performance of global-isel
(compile-time, runtime, code size, fallbacks)
>>> 
>>> The rationale behind those items is that we want to minimize the
pain of moving forward for everybody. We also want the out-of-the-box experience
to be pleasant (like all/most of the tablegen patterns just work, we have
documentation on how to target a new backend, etc.) Finally, we want to gain
confidence we are going to be able to address the performance issues we have
with the current design and if not, derive a plan for that.
>>> 
>>> We purposely left out of the conversation what will be the right
time and requirements to flip the switch. We want to gather more data first.
Your help would be appreciated!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *** Short-Term Proposal ***
>>> 
>>> What we would like to do instead short-term is:
>>> A. Repurpose or create an option “-aarch64-enable-global-isel-at-O”
to enable GISel with fallbacks and warnings enables (i.e., equivalent of
-global-isel -global-isel-abort=2)
>>> B. Advertise this option in the next open source release to allow
compiler enthusiastic to try it and report problems
>>> C. Have GISel always built so we can push thing in the right place,
MachineVerifier in mind, and stop doing some weird gymnastic
>>> 
>>> What do people think?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *** Your Help Is Needed ***
>>> 
>>> - Please share your experience in using the GISel APIs and how we
can make them better. Moving forward we’ll have those conversations on open
source instead of internally/with a narrower audience.
>>> - Report any performance problem you identify
>>> - Propose patches!
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Quentin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>
wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 14, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org <mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12 June 2017 at 18:54, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org <mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I added a buildbot [1] running the test-suite with -O0
-global-isel. It runs into the same 2 timeouts that I reported previously on
this thread (paq8p and scimark2). It would be nice to make it green before
flipping the switch.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did some more investigations on a machine similar to the
one running the buildbot. For paq8p and scimark2, I get these results for O0:
>>>>> 
>>>>> PAQ8p:
>>>>> Fast isel: 666.344
>>>>> Global isel: 731.384
>>>>> 
>>>>> SciMark2-C:
>>>>> Fast isel: 463.908
>>>>> Global isel: 496.22
>>>>> 
>>>>> The current timeout is 500s (so in this particular case we
didn't hit it for scimark2, and it ran successfully to completion). I
don't think the difference between FastISel and GlobalISel is too atrocious,
so I would propose increasing the timeout for these 2 benchmarks. I'm not
sure if we can do this on a per-bot basis, but I see some precedent for setting
custom timeout thresholds for various benchmarks on different architectures
(sometimes with comments that it's done so we can run O0 on that particular
benchmark).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Something along these lines works:
>>>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/102547/
<https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/102547/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you guys think about this approach?
>>>> 
>>>> Looks reasonable to me.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Diana
>>>>> 
>>>>> PS: The buildbot is using the Makefiles because that's
what our other AArch64 test-suite bots use. Moving all of them to CMake is a
transition for another time.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171113/d2e4bfad/attachment.html>

Hi Quentin,

I’ve started running an ABI test suite with global isel on AArch64, and while it
hasn’t found any ABI issues it has hit an assertion in clang when using the
__fp16 type. Here’s a reproducer:

  __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) {
    return p;
  }

  $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c
test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0
  clang-6.0: /work/llvm/llvm/lib/CodeGen/GlobalISel/RegisterBankInfo.cpp:446:
static void llvm::RegisterBankInfo::applyDefaultMapping(const
llvm::RegisterBankInfo::OperandsMapper &): Assertion `OrigTy.getSizeInBits()
== NewTy.getSizeInBits() && "Types with difference size cannot be
handled by the default " "mapping"' failed.
  #0 0x000000000362a764 PrintStackTraceSignalHandler(void*)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x362a764)
  #1 0x000000000362aac6 SignalHandler(int)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x362aac6)
  #2 0x00007f9193b78330 __restore_rt
(/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0+0x10330)
  #3 0x00007f919276bc37 gsignal
/build/eglibc-oGUzwX/eglibc-2.19/signal/../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56:0
  #4 0x00007f919276f028 abort
/build/eglibc-oGUzwX/eglibc-2.19/stdlib/abort.c:91:0
  #5 0x00007f9192764bf6 __assert_fail_base
/build/eglibc-oGUzwX/eglibc-2.19/assert/assert.c:92:0
  #6 0x00007f9192764ca2 (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x2fca2)
  #7 0x0000000003d70eb9 (/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d70eb9)
  #8 0x0000000003d6b00c
llvm::RegBankSelect::applyMapping(llvm::MachineInstr&,
llvm::RegisterBankInfo::InstructionMapping const&,
llvm::SmallVectorImpl<llvm::RegBankSelect::RepairingPlacement>&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d6b00c)
  #9 0x0000000003d6b366
llvm::RegBankSelect::assignInstr(llvm::MachineInstr&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d6b366)
  #10 0x0000000003d6b7f1
llvm::RegBankSelect::runOnMachineFunction(llvm::MachineFunction&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d6b7f1)
  #11 0x0000000002d934c8
llvm::MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x2d934c8)
  #12 0x00000000030c998f llvm::FPPassManager::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x30c998f)
  #13 0x00000000030c9c53 llvm::FPPassManager::runOnModule(llvm::Module&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x30c9c53)
  #14 0x00000000030ca136 llvm::legacy::PassManagerImpl::run(llvm::Module&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x30ca136)
  #15 0x00000000037c3dcf clang::EmitBackendOutput(clang::DiagnosticsEngine&,
clang::HeaderSearchOptions const&, clang::CodeGenOptions const&,
clang::TargetOptions const&, clang::LangOptions const&, llvm::DataLayout
const&, llvm::Module*, clang::BackendAction,
std::unique_ptr<llvm::raw_pwrite_stream,
std::default_delete<llvm::raw_pwrite_stream> >)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x37c3dcf)
  #16 0x0000000003d421a0
clang::BackendConsumer::HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d421a0)
  #17 0x0000000004457376 clang::ParseAST(clang::Sema&, bool, bool)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x4457376)
  #18 0x0000000003ca6ea0 clang::FrontendAction::Execute()
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3ca6ea0)
  #19 0x0000000003c1fa31
clang::CompilerInstance::ExecuteAction(clang::FrontendAction&)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3c1fa31)
  #20 0x0000000003d3bf4b
clang::ExecuteCompilerInvocation(clang::CompilerInstance*)
(/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x3d3bf4b)
  #21 0x0000000001f85629 cc1_main(llvm::ArrayRef<char const*>, char
const*, void*) (/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x1f85629)
  #22 0x0000000001f83096 main (/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x1f83096)
  #23 0x00007f9192756f45 __libc_start_main
/build/eglibc-oGUzwX/eglibc-2.19/csu/libc-start.c:321:0
  #24 0x0000000001f80029 _start (/work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0+0x1f80029)
  Stack dump:
  0.      Program arguments: /work/llvm/build/bin/clang-6.0 -cc1 -triple
aarch64-arm-none-eabi -emit-obj -mrelax-all -disable-free -main-file-name test.c
-mrelocation-model static -mthread-model posix -mdisable-fp-elim -fmath-errno
-masm-verbose -mconstructor-aliases -fuse-init-array -target-cpu generic
-target-feature +neon -target-abi aapcs -fallow-half-arguments-and-returns
-dwarf-column-info -debugger-tuning=gdb -coverage-notes-file
/work/innovation/cctest/test.gcno -resource-dir /work/llvm/build/lib/clang/6.0.0
-O0 -fdebug-compilation-dir /work/innovation/cctest -ferror-limit 19
-fmessage-length 226 -fno-signed-char -fobjc-runtime=gcc
-fdiagnostics-show-option -fcolor-diagnostics -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm
-global-isel-abort=0 -o test.o -x c test.c
  1.      <eof> parser at end of file
  2.      Code generation
  3.      Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module
'test.c'.
  4.      Running pass 'RegBankSelect' on function '@pass_f16'
  clang-6.0: error: unable to execute command: Aborted (core dumped)
  clang-6.0: error: clang frontend command failed due to signal (use -v to see
invocation)
  clang version 6.0.0 (ssh://olista01 at
ds-gerrit.euhpc.arm.com:29418/armcompiler/clang
aa2b9952ef98a5fe2d47384ef17106855b8bae51) (ssh://olista01 at
ds-gerrit.euhpc.arm.com:29418/armcompiler/llvm
29f89772107a79b5f2a816d4748ed9c19416c1b6)
  Target: aarch64-arm-none-eabi
  Thread model: posix
  InstalledDir: /work/llvm/build/bin
  clang-6.0: note: diagnostic msg: PLEASE submit a bug report to
http://llvm.org/bugs/ and include the crash backtrace, preprocessed source, and
associated run script.
  clang-6.0: note: diagnostic msg:
  ********************

  PLEASE ATTACH THE FOLLOWING FILES TO THE BUG REPORT:
  Preprocessed source(s) and associated run script(s) are located at:
  clang-6.0: note: diagnostic msg: /tmp/test-e06964.c
  clang-6.0: note: diagnostic msg: /tmp/test-e06964.sh
  clang-6.0: note: diagnostic msg:

  ********************

Oliver

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Quentin
Colombet via llvm-dev
Sent: 13 November 2017 18:27
To: Kristof Beyls
Cc: llvm-dev; nd; Ahmed Bougacha; Justin Bogner; Aditya Nandakumar
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [GlobalISel][AArch64] Toward flipping the switch for O0:
Please give it a try!

Hi Kristof,


On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at
arm.com<mailto:Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility.
The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of evaluation,
we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388.
I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over
nothing?

No, you’re right. The problem with ABI is if you are consistently wrong, then
you won’t notice :).



I’m wondering if since then on your side you did any testing around ABI
compatibility?
E.g. building software where you semi-randomly build some functions through
GlobalISel and some functions through DAGISel?

Justin will look into that. Clang has utility script for that utils/ABITest.

Given we will only be able to check iOS ABI, you may want to follow the same
kind of validation on your side.

I let you sync up with Justin for the method.

Cheers,
-Quentin



Thanks,

Kristof

On 8 Nov 2017, at 00:42, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Hi all,

I’d like to resurrect this thread and ask if people are on board for enabling
this by default for AArch64 O0.


*** What Changed Since June? ***

- We added a way to describe the legalization actions for non-power-of-2
- We gave a tutorial that covers the best practices to target GlobalISel
- We improved the TableGen backend to reuse existing SDISel patterns
- We built and ran huge internal software with GISel
- We evaluated the performance of GISel and are confident things are in a good
shape (with https://reviews.llvm.org/D39034) and moving forward would look even
better (see the last LLVM Dev talk: GlobalISel: Present, Past, and Future when
it is available)


*** So What’s he Plan? ***

- Switch the default instruction selector to GISel for AArch64 at O0
- Enable the fallback path by default for AArch64 (with warnings enabled when
that path is hit)
- Provide a clang option to turn GISel off

What do you think?

Thanks,
-Quentin


On Jun 16, 2017, at 4:43 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

We had some internal discussions about flipping the default for O0 and we
concluded that we wanted to postpone it.


*** Why Is That? ***

We don’t want to send the wrong message that GlobalISel’s design is set in stone
and ready for broader adoption.
In particular,
1. The APIs are still evolving and can still possibly change significantly
2. The TableGen backend to reuse the existing SD patterns is still at its early
stage
3. We want to investigate closely the performance of global-isel (compile-time,
runtime, code size, fallbacks)

The rationale behind those items is that we want to minimize the pain of moving
forward for everybody. We also want the out-of-the-box experience to be pleasant
(like all/most of the tablegen patterns just work, we have documentation on how
to target a new backend, etc.) Finally, we want to gain confidence we are going
to be able to address the performance issues we have with the current design and
if not, derive a plan for that.

We purposely left out of the conversation what will be the right time and
requirements to flip the switch. We want to gather more data first. Your help
would be appreciated!


*** Short-Term Proposal ***

What we would like to do instead short-term is:
A. Repurpose or create an option “-aarch64-enable-global-isel-at-O” to enable
GISel with fallbacks and warnings enables (i.e., equivalent of -global-isel
-global-isel-abort=2)
B. Advertise this option in the next open source release to allow compiler
enthusiastic to try it and report problems
C. Have GISel always built so we can push thing in the right place,
MachineVerifier in mind, and stop doing some weird gymnastic

What do people think?


*** Your Help Is Needed ***

- Please share your experience in using the GISel APIs and how we can make them
better. Moving forward we’ll have those conversations on open source instead of
internally/with a narrower audience.
- Report any performance problem you identify
- Propose patches!

Cheers,
-Quentin



On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:


On Jun 14, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:

On 12 June 2017 at 18:54, Diana Picus <diana.picus at
linaro.org<mailto:diana.picus at linaro.org>> wrote:
Hi all,

I added a buildbot [1] running the test-suite with -O0 -global-isel. It runs
into the same 2 timeouts that I reported previously on this thread (paq8p and
scimark2). It would be nice to make it green before flipping the switch.


I did some more investigations on a machine similar to the one running the
buildbot. For paq8p and scimark2, I get these results for O0:

PAQ8p:
Fast isel: 666.344
Global isel: 731.384

SciMark2-C:
Fast isel: 463.908
Global isel: 496.22

The current timeout is 500s (so in this particular case we didn't hit it for
scimark2, and it ran successfully to completion). I don't think the
difference between FastISel and GlobalISel is too atrocious, so I would propose
increasing the timeout for these 2 benchmarks. I'm not sure if we can do
this on a per-bot basis, but I see some precedent for setting custom timeout
thresholds for various benchmarks on different architectures (sometimes with
comments that it's done so we can run O0 on that particular benchmark).

Something along these lines works:
https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/diff/102547/

What do you guys think about this approach?

Looks reasonable to me.



Thanks,
Diana

PS: The buildbot is using the Makefiles because that's what our other
AArch64 test-suite bots use. Moving all of them to CMake is a transition for
another time.

_______________________________________________
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/20171114/4d90214d/attachment-0001.html>

On 13 Nov 2017, at 18:26, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at
apple.com<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote:

Hi Kristof,


On Nov 13, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at
arm.com<mailto:Kristof.Beyls at arm.com>> wrote:

Hi Quentin,

My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility.
The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of evaluation,
we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388.
I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over
nothing?

No, you’re right. The problem with ABI is if you are consistently wrong, then
you won’t notice :).


I’m wondering if since then on your side you did any testing around ABI
compatibility?
E.g. building software where you semi-randomly build some functions through
GlobalISel and some functions through DAGISel?

Justin will look into that. Clang has utility script for that utils/ABITest.

Given we will only be able to check iOS ABI, you may want to follow the same
kind of validation on your side.

I let you sync up with Justin for the method.

Thanks Quentin & Justin!
I had a brief look at utils/ABITest. It seems a bit light on documentation on
how to best run the test.
I’m happy to try and run it on linux if you can share some info on the best way
to run that test, Justin?

Thanks!

Kristof

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171114/7e81e00a/attachment.html>