search for: highlight_run

...didn't change much, besides cpu-migrations and context-switches, which now are 0 obviously. That clustering remains the same. It is also stable to the number of runs (I have changed the test to run 20 times in the middle of that range on the right). http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?highlight_run=426&plot.9=1.9.6 Unless somebody has a good idea what else we should try, it seems we have it as good as it could be with the current approach. Thanks Galina On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > > The HT siblings are disabled, r...

...es cpu-migrations and context-switches, which now are 0 > obviously. > That clustering remains the same. It is also stable to the number of runs > (I have changed the test to run 20 times in the middle of that range on the > right). > > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?highlight_run=426&plot.9=1.9.6 > > Unless somebody has a good idea what else we should try, it seems we have > it as good as it could be with the current approach. I am benchmarking a patch and just remembered one thing: cset will only enable the shield if run as root, but it will still run the pro...

...hich now are 0 > > obviously. > > That clustering remains the same. It is also stable to the number of runs > > (I have changed the test to run 20 times in the middle of that range on > the > > right). > > > > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph? > highlight_run=426&plot.9=1.9.6 > > > > Unless somebody has a good idea what else we should try, it seems we have > > it as good as it could be with the current approach. > > I am benchmarking a patch and just remembered one thing: cset will only > enable the shield if run as root,...

...iendly. Didn't decided yet if this is something we want in > lld/utils/benchmark.py. Interesting. Looks like the runs got faster, but they are still clustered in three or four different groups. Looking at instructions makes it even more visible: http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?highlight_run=426&plot.9=1.9.6 Is there anything else running on the machine while the tests are run? Cheers, Rafael

...e. It is real. The code changed > significantly. A number of the hottest regions changed. I’ll compare IRs. > Thanks. Obviously a 1000% execution performance regression seems problematic. -Hal > JFYI FreeBench/fourinarow time graph: > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/graph?highlight_run=76922&plot.1604615=1349.1604615.3 > > > Its graph in our LNT is more stable. > > Thanks, > > Evgeny > > *From: *Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> > *Organization: *Argonne National Laboratory > *Date: *Wednesday, 25 October 2017 at 18:14 > *To: *Evgeny A...

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 19 April 2013 17:48, Török Edwin <edwin at etorok.net> wrote: > >> Otherwise what might seem like a 20% improvement >> could very well be just a 0.2% improvement in practice. >> > > This is (maybe to a lesser extent) what happens with most of our > benchmarks, and

...is something we want in > > lld/utils/benchmark.py. > > Interesting. Looks like the runs got faster, but they are still > clustered in three or four different groups. Looking at instructions > makes it even more visible: > > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph? > highlight_run=426&plot.9=1.9.6 > > Is there anything else running on the machine while the tests are run? > > Cheers, > Rafael > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180227/370951ee/attachm...

> The HT siblings are disabled, right? Correct. > It is probably a good idea to experiment with disabling swap and having > a single cpu in the shield group. Yep. This is what I'm in the middle of. So far I see that it seems the scheduler is keep running on shielded cores no matter what. Even if there is only 1 core in the shield. Thanks Galina On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:36

Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> writes: > Yep. They are still clustered. > >> Is there anything else running on the machine while the tests are run? > > Not much. The usual buildslave stuff - buildbot, ssh server, some light > network services, snmp client, but that's pretty much it. 20 hardware > threads are designated for this. > > The test

On 10/25/2017 12:10 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi Chandler, > > I ran the LNT benchmarks and SPEC2k6.train on AArch64 Cortex-A57. I > used revisions: Clang 316561, LLVM 316563. > > Options: -O3 -mcpu=cortex-a57 -fomit-frame-pointer > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager > > Regressions: execution time increase > > LNT > >

...ments. > > > > The metrics are consistent before and after the commit, so, I do not > think > > this one is an outliner. > > For example, if one would take a look at the linux-kernel branches - > > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?plot.0= > 1.12.2&highlight_run=104, > > it gets obvious that the number of branches increased significantly as a > > result of the r325313. The metric is very stable around the impacted > commit > > and does not go down after. The branch-misses is more volatile, but > still > > consistently shows t...

...nd branch-misses, some shows improvements. > > The metrics are consistent before and after the commit, so, I do not think > this one is an outliner. > For example, if one would take a look at the linux-kernel branches - > http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/graph?plot.0=1.12.2&highlight_run=104, > it gets obvious that the number of branches increased significantly as a > result of the r325313. The metric is very stable around the impacted commit > and does not go down after. The branch-misses is more volatile, but still > consistently shows the regression as the result of...