similar to: [LLVMdev] LNT somewhere hosted and used?

On 12/06/2010 03:33 PM, Bob Wilson wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been following the development of the /zorg/trunk/lnt project for >> a while and am wondering if there is some regular LLVM performance >> testing using LNT that can be accessed online? Are there any plans to >> create an officially

On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > Hi, > > I have been following the development of the /zorg/trunk/lnt project for > a while and am wondering if there is some regular LLVM performance > testing using LNT that can be accessed online? Are there any plans to > create an officially used web service for this like e.g the llvm buildbots? I have a nightly tester

Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 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: > >

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,

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"

The -vectorize build bots test the BB-vectorizer. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? > > > On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at

The debug info statistics bot is triggered by this job: http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/clang-stage2-Rthinlto/ which unfortunately hasn't been green in a very long time (>1mo). Alex/Azhar, do you know what's blocking that job? -- adrian > On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:46 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > +usual debug info folks (but I think in this case

Hi llvm-dev@ LNT produces statistics and graphs (such as [0]) of debuginfo metrics, such as number of source variables with locations. It looks like these haven't run [1] since the move from svn to git -- are there any plans to get these running again? I find it highly useful to identify what commits have affected variable locations and how significant an affect. [0]

Hi, The new LNT server instance http://lnt.llvm.org seems to fail in many cases. Any entrance to a 'Run page' (e.g. http://lnt.llvm.org/db_default/v4/nts/62475) and lately also many perf bots result submissions (e.g. http://lab.llvm.org:8014/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt-perf/builds/2262/steps/test-suite/logs/stdio ) fails with: "500 Internal Server Error". Any ideas? Thanks,

The run page problem were triggered by one of my commits (sorry) and should be mitigated now, see the thread at http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115971.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115971.html> I don't know about the submission problems, could they just an occasional network problem or are they a common phenomenon? Chris did some

Hi, I am currently investigating how to ensure that LNT only shows relevant performance regressions for the -O3 performance tests I am running. One question that came up here is why the default aggregate function for LNT is 'min' instead of 'mean'. This looks a little surprising from the statistical point, but also from looking at my test results picking 'min' seems

Right - you usually won't see a normal distribution in the noise of test results. You'll see results clustered around the lower bound with a long tail of slower and slower results. Depending on how many samples you do it might be appropriate to take the mean of the best 3, for example - but the general approach of taking the fastest N does have some basis in any case. Not necessarily the

On 21 Apr 2016, at 17:44, Sergey Yakoushkin <sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com<mailto:sergey.yakoushkin at gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Kristof, The way we use LNT, we would run different configuration (e.g. -O3 vs -Os) as different "machines" in LNT's model. O2/O3 is indeed bad example. We're also using different machines for Os/O3 - such parameters apply to all

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > All targets are likely affected in some way by the icmp+shl fold introduced with r292492. It's a basic pattern that occurs in lots of code. Did you see any perf wins on your targets with this commit? > > Sadly, it is also likely that many (all?) targets are negatively

Hi Eric, Yeah, I know about Externals and SPEC specifically. But as far as I understand, you have to have kind of description of the tests in test-suite even if you don’t provide the source codes - that’s what I would like to avoid. I.e. you have to have CMakeLists.txt and other files in place all the time, open to everyone. Now, imagine I have a small testsuite, which probably is not very

On 19 February 2013 15:16, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com>wrote: > Do you have a base run with vectorization turned off? So we could see > where we are degrading things? > I wanted to, but after a few failed attempts, I couldn't pass the option to clang to disable vectorization. I don't want to make Galina reconfig the master every time, so I set up a

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:14 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1 September 2016 at 07:45, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I've lately been wondering where benchmarks for LLVM-generated binaries are hosted, and whether they're tracked over time. > > Hi Dean, > > Do you

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>

Hi, I would like to announce a new set of LNT -O3 performance testers. In a discussion titled "Question about results reliability in LNT infrustructure" Anton suggested that one way to get statistically reliable test results from the LNT infrastructure is to use a larger sample size (5-10) as well as a more robust statistical test (Wilcoxon/Mann-Whitney). Another requirement to

Hi, So, I owe you all an apology. I was totally unaware that the llvm.org server, running at UIUC, was still in operation and hosting an active LNT instance. I was under the assumption the LNT server ran elsewhere. As a result, the ability for the LNT bots to submit run information to the "old" LNT server is now gone. I am very sorry for this oversight. In speaking with Chris