similar to: [LLVMdev] adding perf machines

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] adding perf machines"

2013 Jan 28
3
[LLVMdev] adding perf machines
Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie wrote: They're just build bots running LNT - check the build bot configuration code in the zorg llvm project repository. You'll probably need to do some work to get a machine quiet enough to have reliable/useful performance results, though On Jan 28, 2013 8:33 AM,
2013 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] adding perf machines
They're just build bots running LNT - check the build bot configuration code in the zorg llvm project repository. You'll probably need to do some work to get a machine quiet enough to have reliable/useful performance results, though On Jan 28, 2013 8:33 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > What is involved in adding new perf machines?
2013 Jan 28
2
[LLVMdev] adding perf machines
Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: >> Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? > > Those running LNT should be/are: > >
2013 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] adding perf machines
The -vectorize build bots test the BB-vectorizer. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? > > > On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at
2013 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] adding perf machines
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? Those running LNT should be/are: http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity Shows all 3 of the lab.llvm.org machines that run LNT ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/buildslaves - you can see these 3 macminis run "-nt"
2016 Sep 17
7
Benchmark LNT weird thread behaviour
Hi James/Chris, You guys have done this before, so I'm guessing you can help me understand what's going on. If my buildbot config is: jobs=2, nt_flags=['--cflag', '-mcpu=cortex-a15', '--use-perf', '--threads=1', '--build-threads=4'] It uses -j4 for build, -j2 for running the tests:
2019 Oct 18
2
Zorg migration to GitHub/monorepo
Hello build bot owners! The staging master is ready. Please feel free to use it to make sure your bots would work well with the monorepo and github. The following builders could be configured to build monorepo: * clang-atom-d525-fedora-rel * clang-native-arm-lnt-perf * clang-cmake-armv7-lnt * clang-cmake-armv7-selfhost-neon * clang-cmake-armv7-quick * clang-cmake-armv7-global-isel *
2014 Jan 16
4
[LLVMdev] LNT buildbot Internal Server Error
Hi folks, I got ISE when submitting the LNT logs to perf: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-lnt/builds/4663/steps/lnt.nightly-test/logs/stdio I think this is the first time that I get this, is there something happening to the server? Can I disable submitting the results? I don't really care much about the performance of those runs, since that's just the conformance
2019 Oct 15
5
Zorg migration to GitHub/monorepo
Hello everyone, We are in the middle of porting the majority of zorg to GitHub/monorepo. The following build factories will be ported and if you use one of those for your bots, you are all covered: * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeBuildFactory (31 bots) * ClangBuilder.getClangCMakeGCSBuildFactory (2 bots) * LibcxxAndAbiBuilder (23 bots) * SphinxDocsBuilder (7 bots) * UnifiedTreeBuilder (11
2019 Oct 28
2
Zorg migration to GitHub/monorepo
Hi Galina, It seems that our libcxx bots are now triggering builds for any changes to llvm: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-libunwind-aarch64-linux/builds/2434 Should I file a bug report for this? Thanks, Diana On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 at 11:36, Galina Kistanova via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > The staging master is
2019 Oct 29
2
Zorg migration to GitHub/monorepo
I think what she is referring to was that the build seemed to be triggered by a commit to a project that shouldn't trigger builds on a libcxx bot (i.e. the change was in llvm). I have a somewhat orthogonal but related question. In the past, commits to compiler-rt did not trigger builds on llvm/clang/sanitizer bots. Has this behaviour been rectified with the move to github? I am really sorry
2010 Dec 06
2
[LLVMdev] LNT somewhere hosted and used?
Hi, I have been following the development of the /zorg/trunk/lnt project for a while and am wondering if there is some regular LLVM performance testing using LNT that can be accessed online? Are there any plans to create an officially used web service for this like e.g the llvm buildbots? Thanks a lot Tobi
2019 Feb 14
2
Buildbots do not detect test-suite failures!!!
It has just been brought to my attention that our buildbots no longer report failures to compile/link files in the test-suite as failures for the build. As a result, we have at least one bot that is currently showing a green status, yet it aborts when building 3 test cases. I assume that something has changed with how (presumably LNT) reports these failures and the Zorg code does not adequately
2017 Jun 27
5
LNT Server offline
Hi, So, I owe you all an apology. I was totally unaware that the llvm.org server, running at UIUC, was still in operation and hosting an active LNT instance. I was under the assumption the LNT server ran elsewhere. As a result, the ability for the LNT bots to submit run information to the "old" LNT server is now gone. I am very sorry for this oversight. In speaking with Chris
2014 Aug 01
11
[LLVMdev] Dev Meeting BOF: Performance Tracking
All, I'm curious to know if anyone is interested in tracking performance (compile-time and/or execution-time) from a community perspective? This is a much loftier goal then just supporting build bots. If so, I'd be happy to propose a BOF at the upcoming Dev Meeting. Chad
2010 Dec 06
0
[LLVMdev] LNT somewhere hosted and used?
On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > Hi, > > I have been following the development of the /zorg/trunk/lnt project for > a while and am wondering if there is some regular LLVM performance > testing using LNT that can be accessed online? Are there any plans to > create an officially used web service for this like e.g the llvm buildbots? I have a nightly tester
2010 Dec 07
1
[LLVMdev] LNT somewhere hosted and used?
On 12/06/2010 03:33 PM, Bob Wilson wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have been following the development of the /zorg/trunk/lnt project for >> a while and am wondering if there is some regular LLVM performance >> testing using LNT that can be accessed online? Are there any plans to >> create an officially
2014 Nov 27
2
[LLVMdev] Perf is dead again... :(
The LNT Perf reporting website is down for a few days now, should I disable my perf bot to avoid noise while that gets fixed? cheers, --renato
2014 Feb 12
2
[LLVMdev] llvm.org/perf internal server error
On 02/12/2014 11:43 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 12 February 2014 13:52, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> I get an internal server error when accessing llvm.org/perf. This error >> causes buildbot failures as they can not properly report their performance >> findings. > > To be honest, I'd like to stop reporting performance altogether, since >
2013 Jan 03
5
[LLVMdev] Test Suite - Livermore Loops
David, I got some more work on the Livermore Loops and I found out that the issue is the difference in the parameters between a single step and a multi step compilation. When you compile "clang kernel06.c" it works fine, but when you get all steps (clang -emit-llvm + llvm-as + opt + llc etc), the defaults options of each and how they interact is showing a bug in the code generated.