similar to: LNT server function perf profile comparison

Hi Sam, I think an intrinsic would be ideal, but I couldn't figure out how to replace calls with an arbitrary number of arguments with a call to an intrinsic. In particular, I would like to call a trampoline instead of the original function. The trampoline performs certain actions and then jumps to the original callee. Would I have to call the intrinsic with the original arguments and then

Hi! I have written a ModulePass that calculates various things and adds custom metadata attributes to certain instructions. Depending on the attributes, I would like to change the machine code of these instructions. For example, I would like to replace certain calls with jumps, but as far as I can tell the IR metadata is not accessible anymore on the level of machine instructions (e.g. in the

Hi Daniel, Recently quite a few nice improvements have been made to the LNT webui, and it would be good to have these improvements show up on the instance at http://llvm.org/perf. AFAIK, you're one of the few people who know how to update & restart that instance safely? If so could you update that instance to latest top-of-trunk LNT? I'm expecting more improvements to be done

Hi folks, I've been running the LNT bot for a while, and I'd like to change the base run, since the first ones are somewhat unrepresentative of the rest. What's the easiest way to change that? Is there a way to dynamically change it in the future? cheers, --renato -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I got a new machine on which I want to run nightly tests that track clang performance changes over the next years. I plan to use the same or a similar setup as Bob is running for his i386 tester, but for x64. (I plan to extend this, but I want to start small). To set this up I think i need two things: 1. A script to automate the separate steps A script that checks out the different svn

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I started looking at the log files that you attached, and I'm confused. > The code that is supposedly causing the perf regression is created by the > loop vectorizer, right? Except the bad code is not in the "vector.body", so > is there something peculiar about

Hi, We found that today's 17.30%/11.37% performance regressions in LNT SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/sieve on LNT-AArch64-A53-O3__clang_DEV__aarch64 and LNT-Thumb2v7-A15-O3__clang_DEV__thumbv7 (http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/daily_report/2017/1/20?filter-machine-regex=aarch64%7Carm%7Cthumb%7Cgreen) are caused by changes [rL292492] in InstCombine: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28406

Hi Sanjay, The benchmark source file: http://www.llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/test-suite/trunk/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout/sieve.c?view=markup Clang options used to produce the initial IR: clang -DNDEBUG -O3 -DNDEBUG -mcpu=cortex-a53 -fomit-frame-pointer -O3 -DNDEBUG -w -Werror=date-time -c sieve.c -S -emit-llvm -mllvm -disable-llvm-optzns --target=aarch64-arm-linux Opt options: opt -O3

Thank you for information. I’ll build clang without the hack and re-run the benchmark tomorrow. -Evgeny From: Sanjay Patel [mailto:spatel at rotateright.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 8:00 PM To: Evgeny Astigeevich Cc: llvm-dev; nd Subject: Re: [InstCombine] rL292492 affected LoopVectorizer and caused 17.30%/11.37% perf regressions on Cortex-A53/Cortex-A15 LNT machines > Do you mean to

Confirm there is no change in IR if the hack is disabled in the sources. David wrote that these instructions are created by SCEV. Are other targets affected by the changes, e.g. X86? Kind regards, Evgeny Astigeevich Senior Compiler Engineer Compilation Tools ARM From: Sanjay Patel [mailto:spatel at rotateright.com] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:45 PM To: Evgeny Astigeevich Cc: llvm-dev; nd

Hi Sanjay, Thank you for your analysis. It’s interesting why the x86 machine is not affected. Maybe the x86 backend is smarter than the AArch64 backend, or it might be micro-architectural differences. I don’t mind to keep the changes on trunk. What I’d like to see is who will/should be involved in solving the issue. What kind of help/support is needed? Should we (ARM Compilation Tools) start

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > All targets are likely affected in some way by the icmp+shl fold introduced with r292492. It's a basic pattern that occurs in lots of code. Did you see any perf wins on your targets with this commit? > > Sadly, it is also likely that many (all?) targets are negatively

Of course it'll be running as now. But user will need have installed MongoDB. Installation on linux with support of .deb packages is quite easy. sudo apt-key adv --keyserver hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com:80 --recv EA312927 echo "deb http://repo.mongodb.org/apt/debian wheezy/mongodb-org/3.2 main" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mongodb-org-3.2.list sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>

On 29.11.2014 23:03, Renato Golin wrote: > On 29 November 2014 at 20:28, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >> Just a thought. Would it make sense to put LNT server into a Docker >> [1] container so it's portable and then we can move it over to any >> (Linux based) host we like easily and reliably? > > I think this is a great idea. We should at least try,

Hi all, As we understood great changes will be done in LNT, so we are waiting to new LNT version and stopped our work in LNT. One more question about using test-suite separately with cmake. Cmake can only build all tests and generate lit tests. After that we can run LIT and get report which is not equal with report (simple) got with make. Cmake test-suite version has no features to run custom

> I'm not sure what to do w.r.t. access to the machine, I think the best > solution is to try and move LNT off of llvm.org to a machine we don't need > to be as careful with. Just a thought. Would it make sense to put LNT server into a Docker [1] container so it's portable and then we can move it over to any (Linux based) host we like easily and reliably? I've been

On 06/23/2013 11:12 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > When we compare two testings, each of which is run with three samples, how would LNT show whether the comparison is reliable or not? > > > I have seen that the function get_value_status in reporting/analysis.py uses a very simple algorithm to infer data status. For example, if abs(self.delta) <= (self.stddev *

Okay to push this change? On 07/23/2013 05:17 PM, reed kotler wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > In this case we are not using lnt under Qemu user mode for benchmarking; > just as a way to run test-suite to test whether the code is correct. > > Qemu user mode emulates target instructions, but when it gets a Unix > Kernel trap, it uses the host to emulate those. > > For example,

In terms of cost, I thought an LNT instance would exhaust the free database rows much faster than the free dynos. The price for the small database was only 8 dollars a month though. > On Aug 12, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Nice setup! > > > On 12 August 2014 19:01, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at