In the case of no tied variables, we pick random defs, and then random uses that don't alias with defs we just picked.
Sounds good, except that an X86 instruction may have implicit reg uses,
e.g. for `MULX` it's `EDX`/`RDX`: `Intel SDM, 4-162 Vol. 2B MULX — Unsigned Multiply Without Affecting Flags`
> Performs an unsigned multiplication of the implicit source operand (EDX/RDX) and the specified source operand
> (the third operand) and stores the low half of the result in the second destination (second operand), the high half
> of the result in the first destination operand (first operand), without reading or writing the arithmetic flags.
And indeed, every once in a while `llvm-exegesis` happened to pick EDX as a def while measuring throughput,
and producing garbage output:
```
$ ./bin/llvm-exegesis -num-repetitions=1000000 -mode=inverse_throughput -repetition-mode=min --loop-body-size=4096 -dump-object-to-disk=false -opcode-name=MULX32rr --max-configs-per-opcode=65536
---
mode: inverse_throughput
key:
instructions:
- 'MULX32rr EDX R11D R12D'
config: ''
register_initial_values:
- 'R12D=0x0'
- 'EDX=0x0'
cpu_name: znver3
llvm_triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
num_repetitions: 1000000
measurements:
- { key: inverse_throughput, value: 4.00014, per_snippet_value: 4.00014 }
error: ''
info: instruction has no tied variables picking Uses different from defs
assembled_snippet: 415441BC00000000BA00000000C4C223F6D4C4C223F6D4C4C223F6D4C4C223F6D4415CC3415441BC00000000BA0000000049B80200000000000000C4C223F6D4C4C223F6D44983C0FF75F0415CC3
...
```
```
$ ./bin/llvm-exegesis -num-repetitions=1000000 -mode=inverse_throughput -repetition-mode=min --loop-body-size=4096 -dump-object-to-disk=false -opcode-name=MULX32rr --max-configs-per-opcode=65536
---
mode: inverse_throughput
key:
instructions:
- 'MULX32rr R13D EDX ECX'
config: ''
register_initial_values:
- 'ECX=0x0'
- 'EDX=0x0'
cpu_name: znver3
llvm_triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
num_repetitions: 1000000
measurements:
- { key: inverse_throughput, value: 3.00013, per_snippet_value: 3.00013 }
error: ''
info: instruction has no tied variables picking Uses different from defs
assembled_snippet: 4155B900000000BA00000000C4626BF6E9C4626BF6E9C4626BF6E9C4626BF6E9415DC34155B900000000BA0000000049B80200000000000000C4626BF6E9C4626BF6E94983C0FF75F0415DC3
...
```
Oops! Not only does that not look fun, i did hit that pitfail during AMD Zen 3 enablement.
While i have since then addressed this in rGd4d459e7475b4bb0d15280f12ed669342fa5edcd,
i suspect there may be other buggy results lying around, so we should at least stop producing them.
Reviewed By: courbet
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109275
Summary:
Currently, we only have nice exploration for LEA instruction,
while for the rest, we rely on `randomizeUnsetVariables()`
to sometimes generate something interesting.
While that works, it isn't very reliable in coverage :)
Here, i'm making an assumption that while we may want to explore
multi-instruction configs, we are most interested in the
characteristics of the main instruction we were asked about.
Which we can do, by taking the existing `randomizeMCOperand()`,
and turning it on it's head - instead of relying on it to randomly fill
one of the interesting values, let's pregenerate all the possible interesting
values for the variable, and then generate as much `InstructionTemplate`
combinations of these possible values for variables as needed/possible.
Of course, that requires invasive changes to no longer pass just the
naked `Instruction`, but sometimes partially filled `InstructionTemplate`.
As it can be seen from the test, this allows us to explore
`X86::OperandType::OPERAND_COND_CODE` for instructions
that take such an operand.
I'm hoping this will greatly simplify exploration.
Reviewers: courbet, gchatelet
Reviewed By: gchatelet
Subscribers: orodley, mgorny, sdardis, tschuett, jrtc27, atanasyan, mstojanovic, andreadb, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74156
The addition of `inverse_throughput` mode highlighted the disjointedness
of snippet generators and benchmark runners because it used the
`UopsSnippetGenerator` with the `LatencyBenchmarkRunner`.
To keep the code consistent tie the snippet generators to
parallelization/serialization rather than their benchmark runners.
Renaming `LatencySnippetGenerator` -> `SerialSnippetGenerator`.
Renaming `UopsSnippetGenerator` -> `ParallelSnippetGenerator`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72928
Roman Lebedev