forked from OSchip/llvm-project
13 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
Georgii Rymar
|
b6d77e792c |
[tools][tests] - Use --check-prefixes instead of multiple --check-prefix. NFCI.
There is no need to use `--check-prefix` multiple times. It helps to improve readability/test maintainability. This patch does it for all tools at once. Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D78217 |
|
|
Ganesh Gopalasubramanian
|
3408940f73 |
[X86] AMD Znver2 (Rome) Scheduler enablement
The patch gives out the details of the znver2 scheduler model. There are few improvements with respect to execution units, latencies and throughput when compared with znver1. The tests that were present for znver1 for llvm-mca tool were replicated. The latencies, execution units, timeline and throughput information are updated for znver2. Reviewers: craig.topper, Simon Pilgrim Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66088 |
|
|
Roman Lebedev
|
a5e65c1cf7 |
[MCA] Show aggregate over Average Wait times for the whole snippet (PR43219)
Summary: As disscused in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43219, i believe it may be somewhat useful to show //some// aggregates over all the sea of statistics provided. Example: ``` Average Wait times (based on the timeline view): [0]: Executions [1]: Average time spent waiting in a scheduler's queue [2]: Average time spent waiting in a scheduler's queue while ready [3]: Average time elapsed from WB until retire stage [0] [1] [2] [3] 0. 3 1.0 1.0 4.7 vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2 1. 3 2.7 0.0 2.3 vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3 2. 3 6.0 0.0 0.0 vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4 3 3.2 0.3 2.3 <total> ``` I.e. we average the averages. Reviewers: andreadb, mattd, RKSimon Reviewed By: andreadb Subscribers: gbedwell, arphaman, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68714 llvm-svn: 374361 |
|
|
Roman Lebedev
|
9db0e72570 |
[X86] AMD Piledriver (BdVer2): major cleanup (mainly inverse throughput)
I've started this cleanup more several times now, but got sidetracked elsewhere, e.g. by llvm-exegesis problems. Not this time, finally! This is mainly cleaning up the inverse throughput values, and a few latencies/uops, based on the llvm-exegesis measured values. Though this is not complete by any means, there's certainly more cleanup to be done. The performance numbers (i've only checked by RawSpeed benchmark) aren't really surprising - overall this *slightly* (< -1%) improves perf. llvm-svn: 360341 |
|
|
Roman Lebedev
|
a5baf86744 |
AMD BdVer2 (Piledriver) Initial Scheduler model
Summary:
# Overview
This is somewhat partial.
* Latencies are good {F7371125}
* All of these remaining inconsistencies //appear// to be noise/noisy/flaky.
* NumMicroOps are somewhat good {F7371158}
* Most of the remaining inconsistencies are from `Ld` / `Ld_ReadAfterLd` classes
* Actual unit occupation (pipes, `ResourceCycles`) are undiscovered lands, i did not really look there.
They are basically verbatum copy from `btver2`
* Many `InstRW`. And there are still inconsistencies left...
To be noted:
I think this is the first new schedule profile produced with the new next-gen tools like llvm-exegesis!
# Benchmark
I realize that isn't what was suggested, but i'll start with some "internal" public real-world benchmark i understand - [[ https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed | RawSpeed raw image decoding library ]].
Diff (the exact clang from trunk without/with this patch):
```
Comparing /home/lebedevri/rawspeed/build-old/src/utilities/rsbench/rsbench to /home/lebedevri/rawspeed/build-new/src/utilities/rsbench/rsbench
Benchmark Time CPU Time Old Time New CPU Old CPU New
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/09.canon.sraw1.cr2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/09.canon.sraw1.cr2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0607 -0.0604 234 219 233 219
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/09.canon.sraw1.cr2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0630 -0.0626 233 219 233 219
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/09.canon.sraw1.cr2/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.2581 +0.2587 1 2 1 2
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/10.canon.sraw2.cr2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/10.canon.sraw2.cr2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0770 -0.0767 144 133 144 133
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/10.canon.sraw2.cr2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0767 -0.0763 144 133 144 133
Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/10.canon.sraw2.cr2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.4170 -0.4156 1 0 1 0
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9927.CR2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9927.CR2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0271 -0.0270 463 450 463 450
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9927.CR2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0093 -0.0093 453 449 453 449
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9927.CR2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.7280 -0.7280 13 4 13 4
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9928.CR2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0004 0.0004 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9928.CR2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0065 -0.0065 569 565 569 565
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9928.CR2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0077 -0.0077 569 564 569 564
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9928.CR2/threads:8/real_time_stddev +1.0077 +1.0068 2 5 2 5
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0220 0.0199 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0006 +0.0007 312 312 312 312
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0031 +0.0032 311 312 311 312
Canon/EOS 5DS/2K4A9929.CR2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.7069 -0.7072 4 1 4 1
Canon/EOS 10D/CRW_7673.CRW/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0004 0.0004 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 10D/CRW_7673.CRW/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0015 -0.0015 141 141 141 141
Canon/EOS 10D/CRW_7673.CRW/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0010 -0.0011 141 141 141 141
Canon/EOS 10D/CRW_7673.CRW/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.1486 -0.1456 0 0 0 0
Canon/EOS 40D/_MG_0154.CR2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.6139 0.8766 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 40D/_MG_0154.CR2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0008 -0.0005 60 60 60 60
Canon/EOS 40D/_MG_0154.CR2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0006 -0.0002 60 60 60 60
Canon/EOS 40D/_MG_0154.CR2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.1467 -0.1390 0 0 0 0
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0137 0.0137 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0002 +0.0002 275 275 275 275
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0015 -0.0014 275 275 275 275
Canon/EOS 77D/IMG_4049.CR2/threads:8/real_time_stddev +3.3687 +3.3587 0 2 0 2
Canon/PowerShot G1/crw_1693.crw/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.4041 0.3933 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Canon/PowerShot G1/crw_1693.crw/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0004 +0.0004 67 67 67 67
Canon/PowerShot G1/crw_1693.crw/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0000 -0.0000 67 67 67 67
Canon/PowerShot G1/crw_1693.crw/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.1947 +0.1995 0 0 0 0
Fujifilm/GFX 50S/20170525_0037TEST.RAF/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0074 0.0001 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Fujifilm/GFX 50S/20170525_0037TEST.RAF/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0092 +0.0074 547 542 25 25
Fujifilm/GFX 50S/20170525_0037TEST.RAF/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0054 +0.0115 544 541 25 25
Fujifilm/GFX 50S/20170525_0037TEST.RAF/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.4086 -0.3486 8 5 0 0
Fujifilm/X-Pro2/_DSF3051.RAF/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.3320 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Fujifilm/X-Pro2/_DSF3051.RAF/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0015 +0.0204 218 218 12 12
Fujifilm/X-Pro2/_DSF3051.RAF/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0001 +0.0203 218 218 12 12
Fujifilm/X-Pro2/_DSF3051.RAF/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.2259 +0.2023 1 1 0 0
GoPro/HERO6 Black/GOPR9172.GPR/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0001 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
GoPro/HERO6 Black/GOPR9172.GPR/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0209 -0.0179 96 94 90 88
GoPro/HERO6 Black/GOPR9172.GPR/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0182 -0.0155 95 93 90 88
GoPro/HERO6 Black/GOPR9172.GPR/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.6164 -0.2703 2 1 2 1
Kodak/DCS Pro 14nx/D7465857.DCR/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Kodak/DCS Pro 14nx/D7465857.DCR/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0098 -0.0098 176 175 176 175
Kodak/DCS Pro 14nx/D7465857.DCR/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0126 -0.0126 176 174 176 174
Kodak/DCS Pro 14nx/D7465857.DCR/threads:8/real_time_stddev +6.9789 +6.9157 0 2 0 2
Nikon/D850/Nikon-D850-14bit-lossless-compressed.NEF/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Nikon/D850/Nikon-D850-14bit-lossless-compressed.NEF/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0237 -0.0238 474 463 474 463
Nikon/D850/Nikon-D850-14bit-lossless-compressed.NEF/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0267 -0.0267 473 461 473 461
Nikon/D850/Nikon-D850-14bit-lossless-compressed.NEF/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.7179 +0.7178 3 5 3 5
Olympus/E-M1MarkII/Olympus_EM1mk2__HIRES_50MP.ORF/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.6837 0.6554 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Olympus/E-M1MarkII/Olympus_EM1mk2__HIRES_50MP.ORF/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0014 -0.0013 1375 1373 1375 1373
Olympus/E-M1MarkII/Olympus_EM1mk2__HIRES_50MP.ORF/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0018 +0.0019 1371 1374 1371 1374
Olympus/E-M1MarkII/Olympus_EM1mk2__HIRES_50MP.ORF/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.7457 -0.7382 11 3 10 3
Panasonic/DC-G9/P1000476.RW2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Panasonic/DC-G9/P1000476.RW2/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0080 -0.0289 22 22 10 10
Panasonic/DC-G9/P1000476.RW2/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0070 -0.0287 22 22 10 10
Panasonic/DC-G9/P1000476.RW2/threads:8/real_time_stddev +1.0977 +0.6614 0 0 0 0
Panasonic/DC-GH5/_T012014.RW2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Panasonic/DC-GH5/_T012014.RW2/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0132 +0.0967 35 36 10 11
Panasonic/DC-GH5/_T012014.RW2/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0132 +0.0956 35 36 10 11
Panasonic/DC-GH5/_T012014.RW2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.0407 -0.1695 0 0 0 0
Panasonic/DC-GH5S/P1022085.RW2/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Panasonic/DC-GH5S/P1022085.RW2/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0331 +0.1307 13 13 6 6
Panasonic/DC-GH5S/P1022085.RW2/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0430 +0.1373 12 13 6 6
Panasonic/DC-GH5S/P1022085.RW2/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.9006 -0.8847 1 0 0 0
Pentax/645Z/IMGP2837.PEF/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0016 0.0010 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Pentax/645Z/IMGP2837.PEF/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0023 -0.0024 395 394 395 394
Pentax/645Z/IMGP2837.PEF/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0029 -0.0030 395 394 395 393
Pentax/645Z/IMGP2837.PEF/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.0275 -0.0375 1 1 1 1
Phase One/P65/CF027310.IIQ/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0232 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Phase One/P65/CF027310.IIQ/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0047 +0.0039 114 113 28 28
Phase One/P65/CF027310.IIQ/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0050 +0.0037 114 113 28 28
Phase One/P65/CF027310.IIQ/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.0599 -0.2683 1 1 0 0
Samsung/NX1/2016-07-23-142101_sam_9364.srw/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Samsung/NX1/2016-07-23-142101_sam_9364.srw/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0206 +0.0207 405 414 405 414
Samsung/NX1/2016-07-23-142101_sam_9364.srw/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0204 +0.0205 405 414 405 414
Samsung/NX1/2016-07-23-142101_sam_9364.srw/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.2155 +0.2212 1 1 1 1
Samsung/NX30/2015-03-07-163604_sam_7204.srw/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Samsung/NX30/2015-03-07-163604_sam_7204.srw/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0109 -0.0108 147 145 147 145
Samsung/NX30/2015-03-07-163604_sam_7204.srw/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0104 -0.0103 147 145 147 145
Samsung/NX30/2015-03-07-163604_sam_7204.srw/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.4919 -0.4800 0 0 0 0
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.0000 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0149 -0.0147 220 217 220 217
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0173 -0.0169 221 217 220 217
Samsung/NX3000/_3184416.SRW/threads:8/real_time_stddev +1.0337 +1.0341 1 3 1 3
Sony/DSLR-A350/DSC05472.ARW/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0001 0.0001 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Sony/DSLR-A350/DSC05472.ARW/threads:8/real_time_mean -0.0019 -0.0019 194 193 194 193
Sony/DSLR-A350/DSC05472.ARW/threads:8/real_time_median -0.0021 -0.0021 194 193 194 193
Sony/DSLR-A350/DSC05472.ARW/threads:8/real_time_stddev -0.4441 -0.4282 0 0 0 0
Sony/ILCE-7RM2/14-bit-compressed.ARW/threads:8/real_time_pvalue 0.0000 0.4263 U Test, Repetitions: 25 vs 25
Sony/ILCE-7RM2/14-bit-compressed.ARW/threads:8/real_time_mean +0.0258 -0.0006 81 83 19 19
Sony/ILCE-7RM2/14-bit-compressed.ARW/threads:8/real_time_median +0.0235 -0.0011 81 82 19 19
Sony/ILCE-7RM2/14-bit-compressed.ARW/threads:8/real_time_stddev +0.1634 +0.1070 1 1 0 0
```
{F7443905}
If we look at the `_mean`s, the time column, the biggest win is `-7.7%` (`Canon/EOS 5D Mark II/10.canon.sraw2.cr2`),
and the biggest loose is `+3.3%` (`Panasonic/DC-GH5S/P1022085.RW2`);
Overall: mean `-0.7436%`, median `-0.23%`, `cbrt(sum(time^3))` = `-8.73%`
Looks good so far i'd say.
llvm-exegesis details:
{F7371117} {F7371125}
{F7371128} {F7371144} {F7371158}
Reviewers: craig.topper, RKSimon, andreadb, courbet, avt77, spatel, GGanesh
Reviewed By: andreadb
Subscribers: javed.absar, gbedwell, jfb, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52779
llvm-svn: 345463
|
|
|
Roman Lebedev
|
a51921877a |
[NFC][X86] Baseline tests for AMD BdVer2 (Piledriver) Scheduler model
Adding the baseline tests in a preparatory NFC commit, so that the actual commit shows the *diff*. Yes, i'm aware that a few of these codegen-based sched tests are testing wrong instructions, i will fix that afterwards. For https://reviews.llvm.org/D52779 llvm-svn: 345462 |
|
|
Greg Bedwell
|
dee7bfdb9f |
[utils] Ensure that update_mca_test_checks.py writes prefixes in alphabetical order
llvm-svn: 343783 |
|
|
Andrea Di Biagio
|
a2eee47450 |
[llvm-mca] Add fields "Total uOps" and "uOps Per Cycle" to the report generated by the SummaryView.
This patch adds two new fields to the perf report generated by the SummaryView. Fields are now logically organized into two small groups; only the second group contains throughput indicators. Example: ``` Iterations: 100 Instructions: 300 Total Cycles: 414 Total uOps: 700 Dispatch Width: 4 uOps Per Cycle: 1.69 IPC: 0.72 Block RThroughput: 4.0 ``` This patch also updates the docs for llvm-mca. Due to the nature of this change, several tests in the tools/llvm-mca directory were affected, and had to be updated using script `update_mca_test_checks.py`. llvm-svn: 340946 |
|
|
Roman Lebedev
|
7b53d1454f |
[llvm-mca] Make sure not to end the test files with an empty line.
Summary: It's super irritating. [properly configured] git client then complains about that double-newline, and you have to use `--force` to ignore the warning, since even if you fix it manually, it will be reintroduced the very next runtime :/ Reviewers: RKSimon, andreadb, courbet, craig.topper, javed.absar, gbedwell Reviewed By: gbedwell Subscribers: javed.absar, tschuett, gbedwell, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47697 llvm-svn: 333887 |
|
|
Greg Bedwell
|
e790f6fb06 |
[UpdateTestChecks] Improved update_mca_test_checks block analysis
Previously update_mca_test_checks worked entirely at "block" level where a block is some sequence of lines delimited by at least one empty line. This generally worked well, but could sometimes lead to excessive repetition of check lines for various prefixes if some block was almost identical between prefixes, but not quite (for example, due to a different dispatch width in the otherwise identical summary views). This new analyis attempts to split blocks further in the case where the following conditions are met: a) There is some prefix common to every RUN line (typically 'ALL'). b) The first line of the block is common to the output with every prefix. c) The block has the same number of lines for the output with every prefix. Also, regenerated all llvm-mca test files with the following command: update_mca_test_checks.py "../test/tools/llvm-mca/*/*.s" "../test/tools/llvm-mca/*/*/*.s" The new analysis showed a "multiple lines not disambiguated by prefixes" warning for test "AArch64/Exynos/scheduler-queue-usage.s" so I've also added some explicit prefixes to each of the RUN lines in that test. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47321 llvm-svn: 333204 |
|
|
Andrea Di Biagio
|
cb1ed400a4 |
[llvm-mca] Removed an empty line generated by the timeline view. NFC.
Also, regenerate all tests. llvm-svn: 332853 |
|
|
Simon Pilgrim
|
96855ec39e |
[X86] Remove unnecessary WriteFVarBlend/WriteVarBlend InstRW overrides.
This also fixes some of the ReadAfterLd issues due to InstRW. llvm-svn: 330544 |
|
|
Andrea Di Biagio
|
01043625cf |
[X86] Add llvm-mca tests for r328834.
Verify that the ReadAfterLd is correctly applied to FMA and 4-ops variable blend instructions. As Craig pointed out in D44726, some Intel models still have to be fixed. llvm-svn: 328861 |