similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal: Improvements to Performance Tracking Infrastructure.

Hi, This is a summary of what was discussed at the Performance Tracking and Benchmarking Infrastructure BoF session last week at the LLVM dev meeting. At the same time it contains a proposal on a few next steps to improve the setup and use of buildbots to track performance changes in code generated by LLVM. The buildbots currently are very valuable in detecting correctness

All, I'm curious to know if anyone is interested in tracking performance (compile-time and/or execution-time) from a community perspective? This is a much loftier goal then just supporting build bots. If so, I'd be happy to propose a BOF at the upcoming Dev Meeting. Chad

Hi Kristof, > On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > > I've been digging a little bit deeper into the biggest performance regressions I've observed. > > What I've observed so far is: > * A lot of the biggest regressions are caused by unnecessarily moving floating point values through general purpose registers. I've

Hi, GlobalISel, the SelectionDAG replacement, has come a long way since initially discussed on the mailing list and its last discussion at the EuroLLVM BoF (https://etherpad.net/p/GlobalISel <https://etherpad.net/p/GlobalISel>). We believe we are close to the point of enabling it by default on AArch64 at O0. We now would like to enlist your help to get there. *** Quick Status *** On iOS

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I've been digging a little bit deeper into the biggest performance > regressions I've observed. > > What I've observed so far is: > * A lot of the biggest regressions are caused by unnecessarily moving > floating point values through general purpose registers.

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > First off, I just want to say wow and thank you. This kind of data is amazing. =D > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at

I've kicked off a run to compare "-O0 -g" versus "-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=2". I've selected the test-suite (albeit a version which is a couple of months old now) and a few short-running proprietary benchmarks to get data back quickly for an initial feel of where things are. This was running on Cortex-A57 AArch64 Linux. I saw one assertion

First off, I just want to say wow and thank you. This kind of data is amazing. =D On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:46 AM Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> wrote: > The biggest relative code size increases indeed didn't happen for the > biggest programs, but instead for a few programs weighing in at about 100KB. > I'm assuming the Google benchmark set covers much bigger

Hi Kristof, > On Apr 27, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > >> On 27 Apr 2017, at 00:48, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com <mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Kristof, >> >>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com

Thanks Kristof. Sounds like we'll need to investigate though I'd say it is not blocking the switch. At this point I think everybody is on board to flip the switch. @Eric, how does that sound to you? Thanks, Q > Le 1 juin 2017 à 07:46, Kristof Beyls <Kristof.Beyls at arm.com> a écrit : > > >> On 31 May 2017, at 17:07, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at

Hi, Next week at the developers meeting, I'm chairing a BoF session on improving our performance tracking and benchmarking infrastructure. I'd like to make the most out of the 45 minute slot. Therefore, I'd like to start the discussion a bit earlier here, giving everyone who can't come to the BoF a chance to put in their 2 cents. At the same time, I hope this will also give me a

Hi all, I added a buildbot [1] running the test-suite with -O0 -global-isel. It runs into the same 2 timeouts that I reported previously on this thread (paq8p and scimark2). It would be nice to make it green before flipping the switch. At the moment, it lives in an internal buildmaster that I've setup for this purpose. If we fix it and it proves to be stable for a week or two, I'll move

Dear all, Following the Benchmarking BOF from 2013 US dev meeting, I’d like to propose some improvements to the LNT performance tracking software. The most significant issue with current implementation is that the report is filled with extremely noisy values. Hence it is hard to notice performance improvements or regressions. After investigation of LNT and the LLVM test suite, I propose

Great Quentin :). I've rerun the benchmarks comparing "-O0 -g" with "-O0 -g -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=2" on r302453, on AArch64 Cortex-A57. I indeed see almost no moves between GPR and FPR registers anymore (see details below for where I still see some). On geomean, I see 13% slow down (down from 17% on my previous run). On geomean, code size increase

Hi Quentin, On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:47 AM Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Kristof, > > On May 9, 2017, at 3:41 AM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > > Great Quentin :). > > I've rerun the benchmarks comparing "-O0 -g" with "-O0 -g -mllvm > -global-isel -mllvm

Two other things: 1) I get massively more stable execution times on 16.04 than on 14.04 on both x86 and ARM because 16.04 does far fewer gratuitous moves from one core to another, even without explicit pinning. 2) turn off ASLR: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space". As well as getting stable addresses for debugging repeatability, it also stabilizes execution time

Yes, I would hope that for most this boils down to cloning a different URL. Except for folks pushing patches to the test suite, I'm moderately confident there would be no other difference. It's the pushing patches side that would need to be sorted out in more detail. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:48 AM Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com> wrote: > My biggest concerns and

On 12 June 2017 at 18:54, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I added a buildbot [1] running the test-suite with -O0 -global-isel. It > runs into the same 2 timeouts that I reported previously on this thread > (paq8p and scimark2). It would be nice to make it green before flipping the > switch. > > I did some more investigations on a machine

My biggest concerns and care-abouts are largely what Matthias expressed below. Most of them have been addressed already further down the thread. I hope that the move to github in practice would mean that the only difference is that I 'git clone https://github...' instead of 'git clone http://llvm.org/git/test-suite.git' ? Thanks, Kristof On 24/02/2016 22:25, Matthias Braun

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:36 AM, Kristof Beyls via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Mikael, > > Some noisiness in benchmark results is expected, but the numbers you see seem to be higher than I'd expect. > A number of tricks people use to get lower noise results are (with the lnt runtest nt command line options to enable it between brackets): > *