search for: uop

Since the option of running -mode=inverse_throughput was added to llvm-exegesis the names of classes like UopsSnippetGenerator and UopsBenchmarkRunner, that this mode shares with uops, started to be less descriptive. Inverse_throughput doesn't use the uops counters, so for example, the instruction layout shared between these two modes is really connected to parallelism, not uops. It's doubly confu...

> On May 9, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The llvm scheduling model is quite simple and doesn't allow mca to accurately simulate the execution of individual uOPs. That limitation is sort-of acceptable if you consider how the scheduling model framework was originally designed with a different goal in mind (i.e. machine scheduling). The lack of expressiveness of the llvm scheduling model unfortunately limits the accuracy of llvm-mca: we know the number of uO...

...ick <atrick at apple.com>, wrote: > > > > On May 9, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The llvm scheduling model is quite simple and doesn't allow mca to > accurately simulate the execution of individual uOPs. That limitation is > sort-of acceptable if you consider how the scheduling model framework was > originally designed with a different goal in mind (i.e. machine > scheduling). The lack of expressiveness of the llvm scheduling model > unfortunately limits the accuracy of llvm-mca: we k...

Hi, I’m trying to work out the behavior of llvm-mca on instructions with ProcResGroups. My current understanding is: When an instruction requests a port group (e.g., HWPort015) and all of its atomic sub-resources (e.g., HWPort0,HWPort1,HWPort5), HWPort015 is marked as “reserved” and is issued in parallel with HWPort0, HWPort1, and HWPort5, blocking future instructions from reserving HWPort015

Hello, I've been testing llvm-exegesis on X86. Latency and inverse_throughput modes work fine but when I run uops I get an error: event not found - cannot create event uops_dispatched_port:port_0 LLVM ERROR: invalid perf event 'uops_dispatched_port:port_0' I'm running this on a i7-4790K. Am I missing something on my computer or is this not yet fully implemented? This also affects the llvm-exege...

[You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> .] Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis for all scheduling work done by LLVM. Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes incorrect) information. Updating the information is painful and requires careful guesswork and analysis. As a result, scheduling information is incomplete for most X86 models (t...

Ooops, we did it again ... This release (4.7) has the first release notes on the wiki for a CentOS 4 release. And as always we could use some people to translate those :) We didn't find that many problems within QA, so the release notes should now be fairly complete, with limitied changes to them. ISo if you are interested and willing (you are, aren't you?), this is the place to edit:

...Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC > here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#>.] > > Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis > for all scheduling work done by LLVM. > > > Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes > incorrect) information.  Updating the information is painful and > requires careful guesswork and analysis. As a result, scheduling > information is...

...uillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC > here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#>.] > > Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis > for all scheduling work done by LLVM. > > > Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes > incorrect) information.  Updating the information is painful and > requires careful guesswork and analysis. As a result, scheduling > informatio...

...aume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> > .] > > Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis for > all scheduling work done by LLVM. > > Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes > incorrect) information. Updating the information is painful and requires > careful guesswork and analysis. As a result, scheduling information is > inco...

...e four shares do not show up, although the system things do. I've searched the FAQ and the wiki but I can't locate any references to such a problem. Any help from the list will be sincerely appreciated. The four shares in question are: [winstuff], [music library], [photo library], and [uop]. The two that show up okay are: [winstuff] and [uop]. The two that don't show up are: [music library] and [photo library]. Here's my current smb.conf file: ===== [global] workgroup = HOMEOFFICE printing = cups printcap name = cups printcap cache time = 750...

...te: >> [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this >> RFC here >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#>.] >> >> Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the >> basis for all scheduling work done by LLVM. >> >> >> Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and >> sometimes incorrect) information.  Updating the information is >> painful and requires careful guesswork and analysis. As...

Hi all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of

...e four shares do not show up, although the system things do. I've searched the FAQ and the wiki but I can't locate any references to such a problem. Any help from the list will be sincerely appreciated. The four shares in question are: [winstuff], [music library], [photo library], and [uop]. The two that show up okay are: [winstuff] and [uop]. The two that don't show up are: [music library] and [photo library]. Here's my current smb.conf file: ===== [global] workgroup = HOMEOFFICE printing = cups printcap name = cups printcap cache time =...

I am, of course, a huge fan of this effort. :) > >> >> - >> >> [??] Make the tool work for other CPUs. This mainly depends on the >> presence of performance counters. >> >> Having these requirements documented will be great. In particular, it's important to document what kind of functionality we need out of the PMU rather than any

...Simplescalar/ARM and SimIt-ARM) The code generated using llvm-2.9 and llvm-gcc and gcc 3.2. I used these command : $ llvm-gcc -O3 -o test1.bc -c --emit-llvm test1.c $ llc -O3 -o test1.s -march=arm test1.bc -mcpu=strongarm110 $ arm-linux-gcc test1.s -mcpu=strongarm110 -static -O3 -o test1 $ ./sim-uop test1 Unfortunately, got this message : bogus opcode detected @ 0x00008370 [sim_main:sim-uop.c, line 497] My questions are : Am I doing cross compiling right? Is there a way to cross compiler using llvm-gcc? Is there any modern open source ARM cycle accurate simulator that I can use with llvm-...

Hi all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of

...stant vector // from the constant pool and not to broadcast it from a scalar. Would anyone be able to explain why it is better to load a vector from the constant pool rather than broadcast a scalar? I checked out Agner Fog's tables, but it wasn't so obvious to me... vmovaps y, m256: Uops: 1 Lat: 4 Throughput: 1 vbroadcastsd y, m64: Uops: 2 Lat: [Not or cannot be measured] Throughput: 1 Thanks in advance, Cameron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121106/cd47780e/at...

Hello, I read in the announcement of the UOP that Open Ldap will be deprecated after Version 5 an replaced by the Directory Server. Is the Directory Server included in CentOS 5 or only included in the Version 5 orf the UOP? Cheers Sebastian

...>> > Inode-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 7, 524288 bytes) >> > Memory: 509440k/524288k available (1921k kernel code, 14336k reserved, >> > 639k data >> > , 136k init) >> > Mount-cache hash table entries: 256 >> > CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >> > CPU: L2 cache: 1024K >> > CPU: Physical Processor ID: 3 >> > Booting processor 1/1 rip ffffffff80100008 rsp ffff880000655f58 >> > Initializing CPU#1 >> > CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >> > CPU: L2 cache: 1024...