similar to: [RFC] Moving tools/llvm-mca/lib into lib/MCA

+1 to what Clement said. I believe the intrinsics are a better design to support many architectures. IACA users are probably decorating their code with IACA_START / IACA_END macros. One possibility is to provide a header that define these macros in terms of the new intrinsics. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 3:59 PM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote: > Hi Matt/Andrea, > > I

[You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> .] Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis for all scheduling work done by LLVM. Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes incorrect) information. Updating the

Hi Matt, I can see a near future where perf-analysis tooling uses branch history profiler captures to determine how often loops/branches are taken and feeds that into llvm-mca, especially for hot/branchy loop analysis reports etc. Are you confident that your approach will be easily extendable for this? Similarly, being able to generally embed the profile markers in object libraries for

Sounds like a very useful tool.  Thank you for contributing. Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, combining this with the recently contributed llvm-mca dramatically improves our scheduling and performance analysis story.  Being able to take a snippet of code on a particular machine, measure latency/throughput/ports for each instruction (this tool), and then analyze the entire

Hi Andrea, Thanks for this great RFC ! I've put some high-level comments here, and I'll give more focused comments in the review on Phabricator. On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > At Sony we developed an LLVM based performance analysis tool named > llvm-mca. We > currently use it internally to

Hi Sjoerd, On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:19 AM Sjoerd Meijer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I read that out-of-order cores are supported. How about in-order cores? > Would it be easy/difficult to add support for that? > > Cheers, > Sjoerd. > > I don't think that it would be difficult to support in-order superscalar cores. However, it would

Hi Andrea, On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 01:21:33PM +0000, Andrea Di Biagio wrote: > So, I have been thinking a bit more about this whole design. > > The more I think about your suggested design, the more I am convinced that > we should do something more to support ranges in binary object files too. > My understanding is that the reason why we don't support object files in >

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:16 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:24 AM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:26 PM James Y

Thanks for the suggestions Hal, So if I understand correctly, you're recommending we add a module flag <https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#module-flags-metadata> to LLVM, something like: !llvm.module.flags = !{..., !123} !123 = !{i32 1, !"memeq_lib_function", !"user_memeq"} I've given it a try in the following patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56311 If this

Hi everyone, Can someone help me with running llvm-exegesis tool on x86_64? I saw that I need libpfm library, but I'm still getting segmentation fault when I try to run the tool. Is there anything else I need to do (build llvm on some specific way) ? This is how I tried to run this tool: llvm-exegesis -mode=latency -opcode-name=ADD64rr Thanks, Luka -------------- next part -------------- An

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:24 AM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:26 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > I'm afraid about the "almost" and "generally": what about users who don't ? > Even so, it should be fine to enable it for those platforms which do include it. I do note,

If we are considering an optimization to convert calls to memcmp into bcmp, then does it make sense to add an intrinsic for bcmp like there is for memcmp? That way IR writers can express their requirements precisely: memcmp if you care about the direction of inequality, and bcmp if you do not. On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 03/15/2018 10:04 AM, Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> > .] > > Knowing

Hi all, We'd like to suggest *adding a -memeq-lib-function* flag to allow the user to specify a `*memeq()*` function to improve string equality check performance. Right now, when llvm encounters a *string equality check*, e.g. `if (memcmp(a, b, s) == 0)`, it tries to expand to an equality comparison if `s` is a small compile-time constant, and falls back on calling `memcmp()` else. This is

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:50 AM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 12:34 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> This seems a somewhat odd and overcomplicated way to go about this. >>> >>> Given that bcmp was required in POSIX until relatively recently, I will

Dear all, I tried out the example in the help document for mca (the multiple correspondence analysis of the MASS package): farms.mca <- mca(farms, abbrev=TRUE) farms.mca plot(farms.mca) But the graphic that I get seems unfeasible to me: I cannot recognize the numbers (printed in black) because they are all overlapping and concealing each other. I don ?t dare using my own data, which

Greetings. I'm about to embark on my first big (to me at least!) R project, which will be to write a function to plot three-dimensional multiple correspondence analysis (mca) plots in a manner similar to scatterplot3d(). (plot.mca() plots only two dimensions, even though mca() will calculate more.) Before I do so, however, I would love to know that I'm not reinventing the wheel or any

Hi All, I would like to use llvm-mca to estimate the IPC of a given code region. I am interested in the library version (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50929?id=162210 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50929?id=162210>) but I have troubles understanding how to use it. Could you please point me to some documentations or (better) some code examples if any? Reading the documentation

Hi,all: I want to perform multiple correspondance analysis via MCA{FactoMineR}. The data is in the attachment. My code: dat<-read.delim("e:\\mydata.txt",header=T) MCA(dat,quanti.sup=7,quali.sup=1:6) Error in `[.data.frame`(tab, , i) : undefined columns selected My question: Why does the error happen? Many thanks. Best. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and

Hi, I am trying to generate performance models for specific pieces of code like an omp.outlined function. Lets say I have the following code: start_collect_parallel_for_data(-1.0,-1.0,-1.0, size, “tag for this region”); #pragma omp parallel for for(auto i = 0; i < size; ++i){ // … do work } stop_collecting_parallel_for_data(); The omp region will get outlined into a new function and what I