similar to: RFC: XRay in the LLVM Library

Hi Dean, I haven't looked very closely at XRay so far, but I'm wondering if making CTF (common trace format, e.g. see http://diamon.org/ctf/) the default format for XRay traces would be useful? It seems it'd be nice to be able to reuse some of the tools that already exist for CTF, such as a graphical viewer (http://tracecompass.org/) or a converter library

# Objective Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about where time is going in an execution of the application. # Background XRay has two modes currently implemented in compiler-rt: a basic (nee naive) mode and flight data recorder (FDR) mode. Basic mode logging, when enabled, will collect

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:26 AM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 November 2016 at 05:08, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > - Is there a preference between the two options provided above? > > - Any other alternatives we should consider? > > - Which parts of which options do you prefer, and is there

Sent from my iPhone > On 6 Dec 2017, at 4:17 am, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Dean Michael Berris via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi cfe-dev@ and llvm-dev@, >> >> I've attached a Chrome trace-viewer readable trace of a clang built with XRay instrumentation (additional

FYI: Patch is now available for review in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44620. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > # Objective > > Implement an XRay mode 'xray-profiling' that gathers stack trace > latencies/durations and builds histograms to provide basic statistics about > where time is going in an execution of the

On 30 November 2016 at 05:08, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Is there a preference between the two options provided above? > - Any other alternatives we should consider? > - Which parts of which options do you prefer, and is there a synthesis of either of those options that appeals to you? Hi Dean, I haven't followed the XRay project

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:43 PM Dangeti Tharun kumar > <cs15mtech11002 at iith.ac.in> wrote: > > > > Hi Dean, > > > > I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. > > > > Yeah, I'm looking through the code and it looks like

> On 20 Jul 2016, at 20:02, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > > Some general questions about X-Ray > ------------- > Is there a plan to make a separate mailing list or project around > this? Do you have a list of planned features? Interesting question -- so far we haven't decided yet whether XRay will live as another project. I'm certainly open to

> On 30 Nov. 2016, at 22:26, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 30 November 2016 at 05:08, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> - Is there a preference between the two options provided above? >> - Any other alternatives we should consider? >> - Which parts of which options do you prefer, and is

Hi cfe-dev@ and llvm-dev@, I've attached a Chrome trace-viewer readable trace of a clang built with XRay instrumentation (additional build/link flags="-fxray-instrument -fxray-instruction-threshold=75") with the latest "top-of-trunk" version of clang with the recent updates to the XRay runtime supporting record filtering. To load the attached file, go to

Hi llvm-dev, I've been implementing a tool for analysing XRay traces. A recap of XRay's original RFC [0] mentions a tool that does function call accounting as a starting point. This is implemented currently in D21987 [1], and is being reviewed by David Blaikie. One key issue in that review is the dependency between the log format determined by the XRay runtime implementation in

> On 7 Sep 2016, at 01:21, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > (sorry for the delay) > All good, thanks Dave! > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:05 AM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com <mailto:dean.berris at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi llvm-dev, > > I've been implementing a tool for analysing XRay traces. A recap of XRay's

Hello, There seems to be a bug with the value of the thread ID (TID) that is generated by XRay when calling fork(). The value of the TID of the child has the same TID as its parent (this is seen in the “thread: “ field of the YAML output produced by the llvm-xray tool). This is a problem as the trace generated contains the same TID for the parent and children processes, making it difficult to

Hi Dean/Serge, I just spotted this on our bots: First failure, unrelated commit: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/3190 'XRay-Unit :: unit/XRayFDRLoggingTest/FDRLoggingTest.Simple' FAILED llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/xray/tests/unit/fdr_logging_test.cc:55: Failure Expected: FDRLogging_init(kBufferSize, kBufferMax, &Options,

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I'm Ok with merging these if Dean agrees, as I believe he's the code owner. Thanks, Hans On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > There were no LLVM tests for presence of XRay instrumentation map in the > emitted assembly. You can see that https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 adds this > check to the

Hi llvm-dev (cc google-xray), As a follow-up to the first XRay RFC [0] introducing the technology, I've been able to recently implement a functional prototype of the major parts of the XRay functionality [1]. This RFC is limited to exploring potential alternatives to the current LLVM-side changes, with the interest of getting clear guidance for landing the changes first in LLVM. Background /

+Dean Michael Berris <dberris at google.com> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:01 AM Oleg Ranevskyy via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Renato, Dean, Serge, > > Just looked into the code and wanted to share some thoughts. > > This might be a compare_exchange_weak spurious failure. ARM is a weakly > ordered CPU, but I am not sure whether spurious failures

Hi Dean, I have tried with -instr-map-1 and -instr-map-2, it didn't work. Is there a way to find the function name from the identifier? -DTharun On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 2:29 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dangeti, > > That's interesting -- can you try providing both `-instr-map-1=` and > `-instr-map-2=` even though they're the same

Sorry, I initially included LLVM-Commits rather than LLVM-Dev. Fixed. On 26 January 2017 at 03:26, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dean, Renato, > > AFAIK, unfortunately, these critical Arm32 XRay fixes are not yet in 4.0: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D28624 , https://reviews.llvm.org/D28623 . The > first repairs XRay instrumentation map emission.

I'm wondering why the lit tests didn't catch this as part of testing rc1 on ARM. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Serge Rogatch <serge.rogatch at gmail.com> wrote: > XRay is tested automatically on build-bots with tests in LLVM and > compiler-rt . Or are you asking for manual testing instructions? > Of these 2 patches, the compiler-rt patch depends on LLVM patch because