The patch tested OK. And I think it's a trivial patch, and already
committed it to trunk.
About the perf parser. I'm syncing the toolchain to head which should
already have newer kernel support.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Can someone pre-approve t
Can someone pre-approve the patch so that Dehao can check it in after
basic testing?
David
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Rainer Orth writes:
>
>> As Joseph is repeating over and over again, *nothing* must be included
>> before config.h, and auto-profile.c violate
> Rainer Orth writes:
> As Joseph is repeating over and over again, *nothing* must be included
> before config.h, and auto-profile.c violates this.
>
> The following patch at least allows the file to compile without errors;
> no idea if this the best order for the headers involved.
The patch
Dehao Chen writes:
> The updated patch attached. Will commit the patch in 2~3 hours if no
> objection is received.
Apart from the AIX bootstrap failure your patch introduced, it also
breaks Solaris bootstrap:
In file included from ./config.h:6:0,
from /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/loca
On Mon, 2014-10-20 14:21:19 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> The updated patch attached. Will commit the patch in 2~3 hours if no
> objection is received.
Just noticed that this doesn't build on gcc111, see eg. build #364675
[1], which looks like this:
g++ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUC
On 2014.10.21 at 15:31 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Looks like the perf data type is incompatible with quipper (perf data
> parser). Can you send me the perf.data file so that I can take a look.
PERF_RECORD_MMAP2 (aka 10) was added in Linux 3.12 (commit 13d7a2410f).
So your autofdo tool simply doesn
Looks like the perf data type is incompatible with quipper (perf data
parser). Can you send me the perf.data file so that I can take a look.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2014.10.21 at 13:53 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
>> Everything will be the same
On 2014.10.21 at 13:53 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Everything will be the same on non-intel CPUs except for the perf command:
>
> perf record -e instructions -- your program.
>
> i.e. you need to drop "-b" and use instructions as event.
>
> Note that the current algorithm is tuned for accurate in
Everything will be the same on non-intel CPUs except for the perf command:
perf record -e instructions -- your program.
i.e. you need to drop "-b" and use instructions as event.
Note that the current algorithm is tuned for accurate instruction
level profile, which is not available on non-Intel C
On 2014.10.20 at 14:21 -0700, Dehao Chen wrote:
> >> +If @var{path} is specified, GCC looks at the @var{path} to find
> >> +the profile feedback data files.
> >> +
> >> +In order to collect AutoFDO profile, you need to have:
> >> +
> >> +1. A linux system with linux perf support
> >> +2. An Intel p
The updated patch attached. Will commit the patch in 2~3 hours if no
objection is received.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> +/* Member functions for string_table. */
>> >> +
>> >> +string_table *
>> >> +string_table::create ()
>> >
>> > Why this is not a
> >> +/* Member functions for string_table. */
> >> +
> >> +string_table *
> >> +string_table::create ()
> >
> > Why this is not a constructor?
>
> We use static initializer because it's not suggested to put too much
> logic in constructor.
Why not? :)
> >> +}
> >
> > The two hunks probably
Hi, Honza,
I've integrated all your comments to the patch. New patch attached.
Thanks,
Dehao
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Index: gcc/cfgloop.c
>> ===
>> --- gcc/cfgloop.c (revision 215826)
>> +++ gcc
> Index: gcc/cfgloop.c
> ===
> --- gcc/cfgloop.c (revision 215826)
> +++ gcc/cfgloop.c (working copy)
> @@ -1802,7 +1802,7 @@ record_niter_bound (struct loop *loop, const wides
> }
>if (realistic
>&& (!loop->an
Dehao Chen writes:
> +
> +@item -fauto-profile
> +@itemx -fauto-profile=@var{path}
> +@opindex fauto-profile
> +Enable sampling based feedback directed optimizations, and optimizations
> +generally profitable only with profile feedback available.
> +
> +The following options are enabled: @code{-fb
The new patch is attached. I used clang-format for format auto-profile.{c|h}
Thanks,
Dehao
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> Index: gcc/cgraphclones.c
>>> =
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Index: gcc/cgraphclones.c
>> ===
>> --- gcc/cgraphclones.c(revision 215826)
>> +++ gcc/cgraphclones.c(working copy)
>> @@ -453,6 +453,11 @@
>> }
>>else
>>
> Index: gcc/cgraphclones.c
> ===
> --- gcc/cgraphclones.c(revision 215826)
> +++ gcc/cgraphclones.c(working copy)
> @@ -453,6 +453,11 @@
> }
>else
> count_scale = 0;
> + /* In AutoFDO, if edge count is l
>>
>> This will cause bzip2 performance to degrade 6%. I haven't had time to
>> triage the problem. Will investigate this later.
>
> Still I would preffer to make this by default
> flag_reorder_blocks_and_partition
> to false with auto_profile. We could do that incrementally, lets just drop
> thi
> >> Index: gcc/bb-reorder.c
> >> ===
> >> --- gcc/bb-reorder.c (revision 210180)
> >> +++ gcc/bb-reorder.c (working copy)
> >> @@ -2663,7 +2663,7 @@ pass_partition_blocks::gate (function *fun)
> >> user defined section attribu
Hi, Honza,
Sorry for the delay. I just picked up the original patch, and updated
it with your comments.
I've addressed most of your comments. Something else to discuss inlined.
I had refactored the patch to make it much less intrusive. New patch
is attached (ChangeLog will be added in the final
> Index: gcc/auto-profile.c
> ===
> --- gcc/auto-profile.c(revision 0)
> +++ gcc/auto-profile.c(revision 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,1584 @@
> +/* Calculate branch probabilities, and basic block execution counts.
Update the toplev
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to port the AutoFDO patch upstream. Attached is the
> prepared patch. You can also find the patch in
> http://codereview.appspot.com/99010043
>
> I've tested the patch with SPECCPU2006. For the CINT2006 benchmarks,
> the speedup comparison between O2, FDO and AutoFDO is as
Have you announced the autofdo profile tool to gcc list?
David
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Dehao Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to port the AutoFDO patch upstream. Attached is the
> prepared patch. You can also find the patch in
> http://codereview.appspot.com/99010043
>
> I've tested th
24 matches
Mail list logo
