similar to: [RFC] Implementing the BHive methodology in llvm-exegesis

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

Hello, I've been testing llvm-exegesis on X86. Latency and inverse_throughput modes work fine but when I run uops I get an error: event not found - cannot create event uops_dispatched_port:port_0 LLVM ERROR: invalid perf event 'uops_dispatched_port:port_0' I'm running this on a i7-4790K. Am I missing something on my computer or is this not yet fully implemented? This also

Since the option of running -mode=inverse_throughput was added to llvm-exegesis the names of classes like UopsSnippetGenerator and UopsBenchmarkRunner, that this mode shares with uops, started to be less descriptive. Inverse_throughput doesn't use the uops counters, so for example, the instruction layout shared between these two modes is really connected to parallelism, not uops. It's

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 instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis > for all scheduling work done by LLVM. > > >

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

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

[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

I am, of course, a huge fan of this effort. :) > >> >> - >> >> [??] Make the tool work for other CPUs. This mainly depends on the >> presence of performance counters. >> >> Having these requirements documented will be great. In particular, it's important to document what kind of functionality we need out of the PMU rather than any

On 03/15/2018 10:49 AM, Clement Courbet wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto: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 >>

Please can we add a code owner entry for llvm-mca, which should probably be Andrea. I wasn't sure if we need to go through a full nomination process for new tools like this (and llvm-exegesis?) or we can just add the primary contributor to the CODE_OWNERS.TXT list immediately. Thanks, Simon.

I am pleased to announce that LLVM 7 is now available. Get it here: https://llvm.org/releases/download.html#7.0.0 The release contains the work on trunk up to SVN revision 338536 plus work on the release branch. It is the result of the community's work over the past six months, including: function multiversioning in Clang with the 'target' attribute for ELF-based x86/x86_64 targets,

I am pleased to announce that LLVM 7 is now available. Get it here: https://llvm.org/releases/download.html#7.0.0 The release contains the work on trunk up to SVN revision 338536 plus work on the release branch. It is the result of the community's work over the past six months, including: function multiversioning in Clang with the 'target' attribute for ELF-based x86/x86_64 targets,

Alex, I have built ubuntu binaries for the last couple of releases. I apologize -- I haven't built those new binaries yet, I only have uploaded the SLES ones. I have an ubuntu 14 tarball that I'll upload today. I will work on getting ubuntu 16 or 17 next. The dpkg/APT repos might be a good substitute, though. Hans, apologies -- I should've asked to hold the 7.0.0 release for

Makes sense to me, please add it! Thanks again for contributing this work, -Chris > On Apr 18, 2018, at 5:07 AM, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Please can we add a code owner entry for llvm-mca, which should probably be Andrea. > > I wasn't sure if we need to go through a full nomination process for new tools like this (and

Ubuntu 16: a2a2768b04e1d561e6f9a1a2d525eda7aae18624 clang+llvm-7.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-16.04.tar.xz On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:12 PM Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > Uploaded ubuntu 14: > > dec5ca53043c80c1c6e90c0473df84f0182d80af > clang+llvm-7.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:58 PM Brian Cain <brian.cain

Hi Hans, we have uploaded tarballs for ARM and AArch64 targets: a20ea3fe482e754a61ccb37c67456ad1 clang+llvm-6.0.1-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.xz f37b132c3dfb3b776524980be5af3a76 clang+llvm-6.0.1-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz and 47a9a9bb02d41581e6804b98918188f6 clang+llvm-7.0.0-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.xz e639d8f5dc58be5cf44d017fd5eefd6c clang+llvm-7.0.0-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz Yvan On Mon,

Dear R Gurus: I vaguely remember reading that if interaction was present in a factorial design, then the main effect results were suspect. However, I was reading a text which now uses the tests for main effects even if interaction is present. Which is correct, please? Thanks, Edna Bell

Hi, people. Executing the following command: hist(rpois(100,5), labels=TRUE) yields a graphic in which some labels are truncated (on an X11 device). The truncated labels are those over the highest bars. The hist function should ideally manage enough room for the labels, automatically. (Specifying ylim solves my problem, but yet, hist could be frienlier.) --please do not edit the

Hello everyone, I have been using R to do some behavioural economic analysis for my masters thesis, specifically fitting demand curves using nls. E.g. Formula: y ~ c + b * x - a * exp(x) Parameters: Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) c -0.445097 0.080823 -5.507 0.005304 ** b -0.777105 0.059528 -13.054 0.000199 *** a 0.011908 0.003886 3.064 0.037495 * --- Signif.

I am using lme4 to fit a mixed effects model to my data. I have a significant interaction between two variables. My question is what is the correct way to get p-values for single terms involved in that interaction. I have been using stepwise backwards deletion and model comparisons to get p-values,and refitting the model using a REML approach to get estimates.However, presumably to get the p