similar to: RFC: EfficiencySanitizer

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Some of this data might be interesting for profile guidance. Are there any > plans there? > > Esan instrumentation is geared toward application level tuning by developers -- the data collected here are not quite 'actionable' by the compiler directly. For instance, struct

Have you consider naming it `performance sanitizer` instead? I believe that it would be easier to misheard esan with asan, and psan would solve it. Besides, looks like fun! Good luck Piotr 17.04.2016 11:46 PM "Derek Bruening via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> napisał(a): TL;DR: We plan to build a suite of compiler-based dynamic instrumentation tools for analyzing targeted

> > > Will this technology allow us to pinpoint specific accesses that generally > have high latency (i.e. generally are cache misses)? This information is > useful for programmers, and is also useful as an input to loop unrolling, > instruction scheduling, and the like on ooo cores. > Won't hardware performance counter tell you which accesses are delinquent accesses? The

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Qin Zhao" <zhaoqin at google.com> > *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > *Cc: *"Derek Bruening" <bruening at google.com>, > efficiency-sanitizer at google.com, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:18 AM Filipe Cabecinhas via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > TL;DR: We plan to build a suite of compiler-based dynamic instrumentation > > tools for analyzing targeted performance problems. These tools will all > >

Please reference the prior RFC on EfficiencySanitizer. This is one of the performance analysis tools we would like to build under the EfficiencySanitizer umbrella. ==================== Motivation ==================== Knowing the working set size at periodic points during a given application's execution helps to understand its cache behavior, how its behavior changes over time, how its

Thanks for the comment and suggestions. That's a great idea! We actually thought about using each heap object with its type information for more accurate data, and it is definitely in our future plan. However, there are challenges to do so. For example, getting correct type information for each heap object might not be easy, especially for C programs. An application can even use a custom

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:44 PM, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Please reference the prior RFC on EfficiencySanitizer. This is one of >> the performance analysis tools we would like to build under the >> EfficiencySanitizer

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Filipe Cabecinhas <filcab at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for proposing this. It seems like it might be an interesting > tool for us too. But this proposal seems a bit hand-wavy, and I think > it's missing some crucial info before we start heading this way. > > At least for the tools you are currently starting to implement, it > would be

Please reference the prior RFC on EfficiencySanitizer. This is one of the performance analysis tools we would like to build under the EfficiencySanitizer umbrella. ==================== Motivation ==================== An application is running sub-optimally if only part of the data brought into the cache is used, which we call cache fragmentation. Knowing the cache fragmentation information

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Qin Zhao" <zhaoqin at google.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 7:13:38 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: EfficiencySanitizer Cache Fragmentation > tool > ----- Original Message -----

On 04/20/2016 02:58 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Derek, > > I'm not an expert in any of these topics, but I'm excited that you > guys are doing it. It seems like a missing piece that needs to be > filled. > > Some comments inline... > > > On 17 April 2016 at 22:46, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:53 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The > purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which > already has -fprofile-instr-generate or -fprofile-generate for it), but to > select which instrumentors to use for PGO (IR or FE). I prefer fewer flags

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Dean Michael Berris <dberris at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:53 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> > wrote: > >> There is some misunderstanding about the intention of this flag. The >> purpose of the flag is not to turn on profile instrumentation (which >> already has

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 20 April 2016 at 13:18, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >> Not when dead store happens in an external DSO where compiler can't detect >> it (same applies for single references). > > Do you mean the ones between the DSO and the instrumented code? >

Hi everyone, I have a code style question: should full test programs (.c,.cpp files) use the documented CamelCase from http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly or instead use lower_with_underscores as I've been told the .ll lit test files should use? I see both in existing files, and in particular for projects/compiler-rt I cannot

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Craig, Ben via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 4/17/2016 4:46 PM, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev wrote: > > *Cache fragmentation*: this tool gather data structure field hotness > information, looking for data layout optimization opportunities by grouping > hot fields together to avoid data cache fragmentation. Future

Hi all, I've included an RFC for a heap profiler design I've been working on in conjunction with David Li. Please send any questions or feedback. For sanitizer folks, one area of feedback is on refactoring some of the *ASAN shadow setup code (see the Shadow Memory section). Thanks, Teresa RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler Summary This document provides an overview of an LLVM

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:28 PM Wenlei He <wenlei at fb.com> wrote: > This sounds very useful. We’ve improved and used memoro > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm47XsATelI> for memory profiling and > analysis, and we are also looking for ways to leverage memory profile for > PGO/FDO. I think having a common profiling infrastructure for analysis > tooling as well as

Hi Fangrui, Many thanks for providing such detailed feedback! Please find my comments inlined below. - Ammar On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:59 AM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > On 2020-06-26, Ammar Ben Khadra via llvm-dev wrote: > >## TL;DR > > > >We introduce bcov, an open-source binary-level coverage analysis tool [1]. > >The details are discussed