Displaying 20 results from an estimated 900 matches similar to: "AutoFDO sample profiles v. SelectInst,"
2016 Aug 17
5
AutoFDO sample profiles v. SelectInst,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> +dehao.
>
> There are two potential problems:
>
> 1) the branch gets eliminated in the binary that is being profiled, so
> there is no profile data
>
This seems like a fundamental problem for PGO. Maybe it is also responsible
for this bug:
2014 May 12
3
[LLVMdev] Questions about LLVM PGO and autoFDO
Hi, all
Recently I'm trying to use LLVM PGO and autoFDO. However I have some problems in the process.
LLVM source code is updated on April 9th. Operating system is SUSE x86_64
1. Problems in instrumentation based PGO:
clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-generate test.c -o a.out
./a.out (then default.profraw is generated)
clang -O2 -fprofile-instr-use=default.profraw test.c -o a.out
2020 Nov 17
3
[RFC] Control Flow Sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO)
Hi all,
Here I include an RFC for control flow sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO). This is
a joint work with David Li. Questions and feedback are welcome.
Thanks,
Rong
=============
[RFC] Control Flow Sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO)
1. Motivation
AFDO profile is derived from PMU samples from running an earlier build
binary. PMU samples are indexed by the IP addresses. An offline tool uses
the debug
2017 Feb 18
2
[RFC] Using Intel MPX to harden SafeStack
On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> ...
>
> My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction,
> just like XOR or ADD,
> so the overhead should be relatively small.
> Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous.
> And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has.
> Do you have any measurements to
2012 Mar 29
1
[LLVMdev] Error Linking Math Library
Hello;
I was trying to create an executable from the "hmmer" benchmark source code
files after applying some optimization. I am running the following script
-
#!/bin/bash
while read line; do
clang -S -emit-llvm -DNDEBUG -DSPEC_CPU -o $line'.o' $line'.c'
done < files.txt
while read line; do
opt -block-placement $line'.o' -o $line'.o'
done <
2015 Oct 09
3
LLVM AutoFDO status
With recent bug fixes and performance tunings, AutoFDO at llvm has reached a
usable state. To evaluate performance, we used
O3/-fprofile-use/-fprofile-sample-use respectively to optimize clang
itself, and measure its speed.
clang built with -fprofile-use is ~20% faster than clang built with O3
clang built with -fprofile-sample-use is ~10% faster than clang built with
O3
AutoFDO can deliver 50%
2017 Jul 31
1
[RFC] Profile guided section layout
Michael Spencer via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> I've recently implemented profile guided section layout in llvm + lld using
> the Call-Chain Clustering (C³) heuristic from
> https://research.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/cgo2017-hfsort-final1.pdf
> . In the programs I've tested it on I've gotten from 0% to 5% performance
> improvement over
2017 Jun 09
3
Showing hotness in LLVM optimization remarks using AutoFDO sampling profile data?
Hello!
(+cc Adam Nemet, since he presented on optimization remarks at LLVM Dev Mtg
2016)
I have a large C++ program, which I am compiling using a sampling profile
generated via perf and AutoFDO. I'd like to use this profile in order to
show the hotness of each code path that is displayed in the new
optimization remarks viewer tool (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq0q1hfzidg).
It seems,
2009 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] make-test dependencies on local directory
Hi,
I am getting this when running make-test :-
$ /usr/src/llvm-test-2.5/configure
checking for spec95 benchmark sources... no, not found in
/home/vadve/shared/ben
chmarks/spec95/benchspec
checking for spec2000 benchmark sources... no, not found in
/home/vadve/shared/b
enchmarks/speccpu2000/benchspec
checking for spec2006 benchmark sources... no, not found in
/home/vadve/shared/b
2020 Nov 19
0
[RFC] Control Flow Sensitive AutoFDO (FS-AFDO)
Hi Rong,
This is a very interesting proposal. We've also observed profile quality degradation from CFG destructive pass like loop rotate, and I can see how this proposal would help improve quality of profile that drives later optimization passes in the pipeline. I have a few questions.
* How does this affect today's AutoFDO? Specifically, can users upgrade compiler with FS-AutoFDO
2009 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] make-test dependencies on local directory
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote:
> These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the
> legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from
> another source, you need to configure --with-externals=<path>
Okay, thanks. Thre should be better warning/error reporting though.
Aaron
>
>
2009 Feb 23
0
[LLVMdev] make-test dependencies on local directory
These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the
legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from
another source, you need to configure --with-externals=<path>
On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:02 AMPST, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am getting this when running make-test :-
>
> $ /usr/src/llvm-test-2.5/configure
> checking for
2019 Jan 08
2
distributed thinlto usage
I am trying to work through the usage of thinlto for distributed builds.
Here is the simple thinlto usage, just add -flto=thin everywhere, easy:
clang++ -flto=thin -O3 -c -o CreateWay_.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DSPEC_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN -Wno-dangling-else CreateWay_.cpp
clang++ -flto=thin -O3 -c -o Places_.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -DSPEC_CPU_LITTLE_ENDIAN
2009 Feb 23
0
[LLVMdev] make-test dependencies on local directory
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com
> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the
>> legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from
>> another source, you need to configure
2019 Jan 09
2
distributed thinlto usage
Thanks Teresa
Yes it is astar, happen to send a tar of the sources but they are just copies from the spec distribution
The ld command is:
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.29.1
Thanks for the guidance on path names. The prefix-replace just effects the string written to the object files right? So we could post-process that file with other tools as well, correct?
Thanks again
--david
From: Teresa Johnson
2019 Jan 09
2
distributed thinlto usage
Fails with gold too:
Library-native.o:Library.cpp:regway: error: undefined reference to 'vtable for regwayobj'
/home/dcallahan/fbsource/fbcode/third-party-buck/platform007/tools/binutils/bin/gold/ld: the vtable symbol may be undefined because the class is missing its key function
clang-8: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
From: Teresa Johnson
2015 Jan 12
8
[LLVMdev] RFC: Loop distribution/Partial vectorization
Hi,
We'd like to propose new Loop Distribution pass. The main motivation is to
allow partial vectorization of loops. One such example is the main loop of
456.hmmer in SpecINT_2006. The current version of the patch improves hmmer by
24% on ARM64 and 18% on X86.
The goal of the pass is to distribute a loop that can't be vectorized because of
memory dependence cycles. The pass splits
2016 Mar 16
3
GSoC Proposal : Path Profiling Support
Hi David,
> Are the data below all collected when only one function is picked for
> instrumentation?
Yes, here is a list of the benchmarks and selected functions.
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| blks | _Z19BlkSchlsEqEuroNoDivfffffif
|
2013 Aug 16
0
[LLVMdev] running spec2006 with clang
On 08/16/2013 01:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com
> <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote:
>
> -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++
>
>
> I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not
> Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll
> have to force
2014 Apr 07
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 performance regressed?
Hi,
It was suggested that I post my question regarding a LLVM 3.4 performance
regression to this mailing list, rather than stackoverflow. So here is
the link:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22902034/llvm-3-4-performance-regressed
Thanks :)
Jens
--
Jens Tröger
http://savage.light-speed.de/