search for: recent_act

...2:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: >> Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? > > Those running LNT should be/are: > > http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity > > Shows all 3 of the lab.llvm.org machines that run LNT ( > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/buildslaves - you can see these 3 macminis > run "-nt" builder variations (-O3, -O3 vectorized, -O0 -g)) > >> >> On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >&...

On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Star Tan wrote: > Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Hi Star Tan, thanks for this very extensive analysis. The results look very interesting. As you found out, just removing some canonicalization passes will reduce compile time, but this reduction may in large part being due to Polly not being able to optimise certain pieces of code. Inste...

Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Star Tan wrote: > >Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity > > Hi Star Tan, > > thanks for this very extensive analysis. The results look very > interesting. As you found out, just removing some canonicalization > passes will reduce compile time, but this reduction may in large > part being due to Polly not being able to optimis...

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? Those running LNT should be/are: http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Shows all 3 of the lab.llvm.org machines that run LNT ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/buildslaves - you can see these 3 macminis run "-nt" builder variations (-O3, -O3 vectorized, -O0 -g)) > > On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > They're just build bots r...

...om order will lead to different results. As a result, we should not change the detection order. > >Sebastian had a patch for this. Does his patch improve the scop >detection time. LNT testing results for Sebastian's patch file can be seen on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity (Run Order: ScopDetect130615). You can compare ScopDetect130615 (Polly with Sebastian's patch) to pOpt130615 (Polly without Sebastian's patch). The result seems not show significant performance improvements with the bottom-up patch for LLVM test-suite benchmarks. You are right. I think...

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same...

...> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: >>> Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? >> >> Those running LNT should be/are: >> >> http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity >> >> Shows all 3 of the lab.llvm.org machines that run LNT ( >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/buildslaves - you can see these 3 macminis >> run "-nt" builder variations (-O3, -O3 vectorized, -O0 -g)) >> >>> >>> On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM...

Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie wrote: They're just build bots running LNT - check the build bot configuration code in the zorg llvm project repository. You'll probably need to do some work to get a machine quiet enough to have reliable/useful performance results, though On Jan 28, 2013 8:33 AM,

...llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-perf-testsuite. >It builds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of >perfromance tests. > >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. > >The performance statistics are here: >http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity > >Thanks > >Galina Great news, thanks ! Looking on results I am not sure how to explain them though. For example r325313 fixes "use after free", it should not give any performance slowdowns or boosts. Though if I read results right, they show 23.65% slowdown for time...

...mance builder at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-perf-testsuite. It builds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of perfromance tests. The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. The performance statistics are here: http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity Thanks Galina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180215/a89f9a6e/attachment.html>

...for getting to the point where at least some of the performance > regressions are > > detected and acted upon. > > > > We already have a central database that stores benchmarking numbers, > produced > > for 2 boards, see > > http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity#machines. > However, it > > seems no-one monitors the produced results, nor is it easy to derive from > those > > numbers if a particular patch really introduced a significant regression. > > > > At the BoF, we identified the following issues blocking us from bein...

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev pollyNoGenSCEV_1comb (run 46): same option as pollyNoGenSCEV but remove the first "Instruc...

...tsuite. > >It builds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of > >perfromance tests. > > > >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. > > > >The performance statistics are here: > >http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity > > > >Thanks > > > >Galina > > Great news, thanks ! > > Looking on results I am not sure how to explain them though. > > For example r325313 fixes "use after free", it should not give any > performance > slowdowns or boosts. Though if...

...ds LLVM and LLD by the latest releaed Clang and runs a set of >> >perfromance tests. >> > >> >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. >> > >> >The performance statistics are here: >> >http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity >> > >> >Thanks >> > >> >Galina >> >> Great news, thanks ! >> >> Looking on results I am not sure how to explain them though. >> >> For example r325313 fixes "use after free", it should not give any >> perf...

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

...he current status. Ideally, we should initially aim for getting to the point where at least some of the performance regressions are detected and acted upon. We already have a central database that stores benchmarking numbers, produced for 2 boards, see http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity#machines. However, it seems no-one monitors the produced results, nor is it easy to derive from those numbers if a particular patch really introduced a significant regression. At the BoF, we identified the following issues blocking us from being able to detect significant regressions m...

...releaed Clang and runs a set of > >> >perfromance tests. > >> > > >> >The builder is reliable. Please pay attention on the failures. > >> > > >> >The performance statistics are here: > >> >http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/link/recent_activity > >> > > >> >Thanks > >> > > >> >Galina > >> > >> Great news, thanks ! > >> > >> Looking on results I am not sure how to explain them though. > >> > >> For example r325313 fixes "use afte...

On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. > This mail is to share some results I have found. > > > (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) > Experimental results show that the

Hi all, I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. This mail is to share some results I have found. (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) Experimental results show that the "SCOP Detection pass" does not lead to significant extra compile-time

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.