search for: md_count

Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "md_count".

Did you mean: mc_count
2015 May 07
3
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...t; count fits the bill > 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs > a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data > (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change > requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count > to record edge count without capping/scaling. > > b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do > not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency > propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch > probability/weight in order to recompu...
2015 May 07
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...> 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs >>> a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data >>> (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change >>> requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count >>> to record edge count without capping/scaling. >>> >>> b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do >>> not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency >>> propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch >...
2015 Mar 24
8
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...y different ways of representing profile > information in LLVM IR. It is great to have two complementary > approaches to collecting profile data, but two representations in > the IR would not make sense. > > > Yeah, I don't think I'll continue to push for a new MD_count > attribute. If we were to make MD_prof be a "real" execution count, > that would be enough. Note that by re-using MD_prof we are not > changing its meaning at all. The execution count is still a weight and > the ratio is still branch probability. All that we are changing...
2015 Mar 26
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
> On Mar 24, 2015, at 3:22 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Bob
2015 Mar 05
5
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote: > > I've created a few bugzilla issues with details of some of the things I'll be looking into. I'm not yet done wordsmithing the overall design document.
2015 Mar 24
3
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...ays of representing profile information in LLVM IR. It is great to have two >>> complementary approaches to collecting profile data, but two representations >>> in the IR would not make sense. >> >> >> Yeah, I don't think I'll continue to push for a new MD_count attribute. If >> we were to make MD_prof be a "real" execution count, that would be enough. >> Note that by re-using MD_prof we are not changing its meaning at all. The >> execution count is still a weight and the ratio is still branch probability. >> All that we a...
2015 May 22
2
[LLVMdev] RFC - Improvements to PGO profile support
...; 2) There are two ways to compute profile count for BBs > >> a) directly compute it from the edge count recorded in profile data > >> (and BB Frequency can be directly scaled from it), but this change > >> requires slightly changing MD_prof's meaning or introducing MD_count > >> to record edge count without capping/scaling. > >> > >> b) Just recording the entry profile count (minimal change), but do > >> not change MD_prof. This approach will reuse block frequency > >> propagation, but the later relies on unaltered branch...