I think that JIT support on platforms that don’t get regular tuning doesn’t make sense. I think we should:
- Remove JIT support for 32-bit platforms - Remove JIT support for Windows - Remove JSVALUE32_64 - Use cloop In 64-bit mode on 32-bit platforms and Windows. I think this approach would be best for the project since it would mean less time spent on JIT ports that are never quite done. -Filip > On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:01 AM, Caio Lima <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi guys,I've posted this on the bug thread, but I would also like to > revive the discussion here. > > After our last discussion, I put some effort to enable IC for ARMv6 > into JIT layers and now I finally collected some results for that. > > Now, we have regressions just into 2 tests in SunSpider (they aren't > regressing in LongSpider) and 3 into Octane (gbemu, typescript and > box2d). Also, I see regressions into microbenchmarks, mainly cases > with observable-side-effects and set/map tests. > > With these results, what do you think about keep working into ARMv6 support? > > Maybe an important report is that I'm almost fixing the errors taking > the http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/220532 as baseline. Currently > there are ~40 tests failing, and the majority of them are due to OOM > into my runtime env, due to memory constraints. I will try to merge it > with current master this week to check the status of build+failures. > > Regards, > Caio. > > 2017-08-01 20:52 GMT-03:00 Caio Lima <[email protected]>: >> Hi all. >> >> FYI, I keep the last weeks investigating the issue with ARMv6 IC and I >> was able to find the source of the bug and apply a quick fix to run >> benchmarks again to get results. I just ran V8Spider, Octane and >> Kraken by now and I'm attaching the results in this email. >> >> We found some test cases regressing, and my attention now is to >> identify the reason of the regression and how to fix them. Also, the >> improvements got with JIT in ARMv6 aren't as big as Filip commented in >> [1] to supported architectures. >> >> [1] - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172765#c9 >> >> 2017-07-13 19:27 GMT-03:00 Caio Lima <[email protected]>: >>> Yes. It probably will take a while to process on device, but I'll run it. >>> >>> Em qui, 13 de jul de 2017 às 17:50, Saam barati <[email protected]> >>> escreveu: >>>> >>>> And ARES6. >>>> >>>> - Saam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Saam barati <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you please run Octane and Kraken too? >>>> >>>> - Saam >>>> >>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Caio Lima <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Finally I got the results from the last benchmark run. The results >>>> shows that the speed-ups are considerable comparing with CLoop >>>> version, since we get faster results in a big number of tests and >>>> regress in a minor number of scripts. I would like to get feedback >>>> from you as well, but IMHO enabling JIT for ARMv6 looks a good >>>> improvement step and the amount of code we are touching in current >>>> trunk code to make it possible is small. >>>> >>>> The results are attached and I also uploaded them in >>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172765. >>>> >>>> PS.: Some test cases (bigswitch-indirect-symbol-or-undefined, >>>> bigswitch-indirect-symbol, bigswitch, etc) are failing now and I'm >>>> already investigating the source of problem to fix them. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Caio. >>>> >>>> 2017-07-05 22:54 GMT-03:00 Filip Pizlo <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> To be clear, I’m concerned that the 32-bit JIT backends have such bad >>>> tuning for these embedded platforms that it’s just pure badness. Until you >>>> can prove that you can change this, I think that porting should focus on >>>> making the cloop great. Then, we can rip out support for weird CPUs rather >>>> than bringing it back. >>>> >>>> -Filip >>>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 6:14 PM, Caio Lima <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2017-07-05 18:25 GMT-03:00 Filip Pizlo <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> You need to establish that the JIT is a performance progression over the >>>> LLInt on ARMv6. I am opposed to more ARMv6 patches landing until there is >>>> some evidence provided that you’re actually getting speed-ups. >>>> >>>> >>>> It makes sense. I can get these numbers related to JIT. >>>> >>>> BTW, there is a Patch that isn't JIT related >>>> (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172766). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Caio. >>>> >>>> -Filip >>>> >>>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Caio Lima <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi All. >>>> >>>> Some of you guys might know me through the work I have been doing in >>>> JSC. The experience working with WebKit has been great so far, thank >>>> you for the reviews! >>>> >>>> Since 1st May, we at Igalia have been working on bring back the ARMv6 >>>> support into JSC. We already have commits into our downstream branch >>>> port[2] that fixes some compile/runtime errors when building JSC to >>>> ARMv6 and also fixes some bugs. However, this branch is not synced >>>> with WebKit upstream tree and I would like to pursue the upstreaming >>>> of this ARMv6/JSC support to WebKit. >>>> >>>> As a long shot, we are planning to maintain the ARMv6 support and make >>>> tests run as green as possible. Also, it's our goal make ARMv6 support >>>> not interfere with other ARM versions support code negatively and we >>>> will be in charge of implement platform-specific fixes/features for >>>> JSC/ARM6, this way no imposing burden to the rest of the community. >>>> >>>> To keep track of work to be done, I've create a meta-bug in >>>> bugzilla[3] and it's going to be used firstly to organize the commits >>>> from our downstream branch, but pretty soon I'm going to create issues >>>> related with javascriptcore-test failures and send patches to fix >>>> them. We have already submitted 3 patches (they are marked as >>>> dependence of [3]) that fixes ARMv6 into LLInt and JIT layers and got >>>> a round of review into them. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Caio. >>>> >>>> [1] - https://www.igalia.com/about-us/coding-experience >>>> [2] - https://github.com/WebPlatformForEmbedded/WPEWebKit >>>> [3] - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172765 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> <baseline_changes_SunSpiderLongSpiderV8SpiderMicrobenchmarksSixSpeed_buildroot_20170712_1029_report.txt>_______________________________________________ >>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
