maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86PfmCounters.td

227 lines
9.8 KiB
TableGen
Raw Normal View History

[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
//===-- X86PfmCounters.td - X86 Hardware Counters ----------*- tablegen -*-===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This describes the available hardware counters for various subtargets.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter : PfmCounter<"unhalted_core_cycles">;
def UopsIssuedPfmCounter : PfmCounter<"uops_issued:any">;
[llvm-exegesis][NFC] Add a way to declare the default counter binding for unbound CPUs for a target. Summary: This simplifies the code and moves everything to tablegen for consistency. This also prepares the ground for adding issue counters. Reviewers: gchatelet, john.brawn, jsji Subscribers: nemanjai, mgorny, javed.absar, kbarton, tschuett, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54297 llvm-svn: 346489
2018-11-09 21:15:32 +08:00
// No default counters on X86.
def DefaultPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {}
def : PfmCountersDefaultBinding<DefaultPfmCounters>;
[X86] Improve pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis This patch attempts to improve pfm perf counter coverage for all the x86 CPUs that libpfm4 supports. Intel/AMD CPU families tend to share names for cycle/uops counters so even if they don't have a scheduler model yet they can at least use the default values (checked against the libpfm4 source code). The remaining CPUs (where their port/pipe resource counters are known) I've tried to add to the existing model mappings. These are untested but don't represent a regression to current llvm-exegesis behaviour for these CPUs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55432 llvm-svn: 348617
2018-12-08 01:48:40 +08:00
// Intel X86 Counters.
def PentiumPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"uops_retired">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"pentiumpro", PentiumPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"pentium2", PentiumPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"pentium3", PentiumPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"pentium3m", PentiumPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"pentium-m", PentiumPfmCounters>;
def CorePfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"uops_retired:any">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"yonah", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"prescott", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"core2", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"penryn", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"nehalem", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"corei7", CorePfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"westmere", CorePfmCounters>;
def AtomPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"uops_retired:any">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"bonnell", AtomPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"atom", AtomPfmCounters>;
def SLMPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"uops_retired:any">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"silvermont", SLMPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"goldmont", SLMPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"goldmont-plus", SLMPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"tremont", SLMPfmCounters>;
[X86] Extend pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis Extension to rL348617, turns out llvm-exegesis doesn't need to match the perf counter name against a scheduler model resource name - so I've added a few more counters that I could find in the libpfm4 source code (and fix a typo in the knl/knm retired_uops counter - which uses 'all' instead of 'any'). llvm-svn: 348721
2018-12-09 21:45:15 +08:00
def KnightPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"uops_retired:all">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"knl", KnightPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"knm", KnightPfmCounters>;
[X86] Improve pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis This patch attempts to improve pfm perf counter coverage for all the x86 CPUs that libpfm4 supports. Intel/AMD CPU families tend to share names for cycle/uops counters so even if they don't have a scheduler model yet they can at least use the default values (checked against the libpfm4 source code). The remaining CPUs (where their port/pipe resource counters are known) I've tried to add to the existing model mappings. These are untested but don't represent a regression to current llvm-exegesis behaviour for these CPUs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55432 llvm-svn: 348617
2018-12-08 01:48:40 +08:00
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def SandyBridgePfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = UopsIssuedPfmCounter;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"SBPort0", "uops_dispatched_port:port_0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SBPort1", "uops_dispatched_port:port_1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SBPort23", "uops_dispatched_port:port_2 + uops_dispatched_port:port_3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SBPort4", "uops_dispatched_port:port_4">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SBPort5", "uops_dispatched_port:port_5">
];
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"sandybridge", SandyBridgePfmCounters>;
[X86] Add ivybridge to llvm-exegesis PFM counter mappings llvm-svn: 348575
2018-12-07 17:27:35 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"ivybridge", SandyBridgePfmCounters>;
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def HaswellPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = UopsIssuedPfmCounter;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort0", "uops_dispatched_port:port_0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort1", "uops_dispatched_port:port_1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort2", "uops_dispatched_port:port_2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort3", "uops_dispatched_port:port_3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort4", "uops_dispatched_port:port_4">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort5", "uops_dispatched_port:port_5">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort6", "uops_dispatched_port:port_6">,
PfmIssueCounter<"HWPort7", "uops_dispatched_port:port_7">
];
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"haswell", HaswellPfmCounters>;
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def BroadwellPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = UopsIssuedPfmCounter;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort0", "uops_executed_port:port_0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort1", "uops_executed_port:port_1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort2", "uops_executed_port:port_2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort3", "uops_executed_port:port_3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort4", "uops_executed_port:port_4">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort5", "uops_executed_port:port_5">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort6", "uops_executed_port:port_6">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BWPort7", "uops_executed_port:port_7">
];
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"broadwell", BroadwellPfmCounters>;
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def SkylakeClientPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = UopsIssuedPfmCounter;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort0", "uops_dispatched_port:port_0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort1", "uops_dispatched_port:port_1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort2", "uops_dispatched_port:port_2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort3", "uops_dispatched_port:port_3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort4", "uops_dispatched_port:port_4">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort5", "uops_dispatched_port:port_5">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort6", "uops_dispatched_port:port_6">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKLPort7", "uops_dispatched_port:port_7">
];
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"skylake", SkylakeClientPfmCounters>;
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def SkylakeServerPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = UnhaltedCoreCyclesPfmCounter;
let UopsCounter = UopsIssuedPfmCounter;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort0", "uops_dispatched_port:port_0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort1", "uops_dispatched_port:port_1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort2", "uops_dispatched_port:port_2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort3", "uops_dispatched_port:port_3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort4", "uops_dispatched_port:port_4">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort5", "uops_dispatched_port:port_5">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort6", "uops_dispatched_port:port_6">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SKXPort7", "uops_dispatched_port:port_7">
];
[MC][TableGen] Add optional libpfm counter names for ProcResUnits. Summary: Subtargets can define the libpfm counter names that can be used to measure cycles and uops issued on ProcResUnits. This allows making llvm-exegesis available on more targets. Fixes PR36984. Reviewers: gchatelet, RKSimon, andreadb, craig.topper Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45360 llvm-svn: 329675
2018-04-10 16:16:37 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"skylake-avx512", SkylakeServerPfmCounters>;
[X86] Improve pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis This patch attempts to improve pfm perf counter coverage for all the x86 CPUs that libpfm4 supports. Intel/AMD CPU families tend to share names for cycle/uops counters so even if they don't have a scheduler model yet they can at least use the default values (checked against the libpfm4 source code). The remaining CPUs (where their port/pipe resource counters are known) I've tried to add to the existing model mappings. These are untested but don't represent a regression to current llvm-exegesis behaviour for these CPUs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55432 llvm-svn: 348617
2018-12-08 01:48:40 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"cascadelake", SkylakeServerPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"cannonlake", SkylakeServerPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"icelake-client", SkylakeServerPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"icelake-server", SkylakeServerPfmCounters>;
// AMD X86 Counters.
// Set basic counters for AMD cpus that we know libpfm4 supports.
def DefaultAMDPfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon-tbird", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon-4", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon-xp", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon-mp", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"k8", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"opteron", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon64", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon-fx", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"k8-sse3", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"opteron-sse3", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"athlon64-sse3", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"amdfam10", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"barcelona", DefaultAMDPfmCounters>;
[X86][BtVer2] Added Jaguar cpu cycle counter to permit llvm-exegesis latency testing Ideally we'd be able to test a CPU by using __builtin_readcyclecounter()/RDTSC instead (PR37193) if a model/cycle-counter is not specified. NOTE: Jaguar PMCs don't give good coverage of resource pipes specified in the model (at the macro-vs-micro-op levels) but we should be able to cover at least a few resources. llvm-svn: 333190
2018-05-24 22:54:32 +08:00
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
2018-10-28 04:46:30 +08:00
def BdVer2PfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"PdFPU0", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe0 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"PdFPU1", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe1 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"PdFPU2", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe2 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"PdFPU3", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe3 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe3">
];
}
[X86] Improve pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis This patch attempts to improve pfm perf counter coverage for all the x86 CPUs that libpfm4 supports. Intel/AMD CPU families tend to share names for cycle/uops counters so even if they don't have a scheduler model yet they can at least use the default values (checked against the libpfm4 source code). The remaining CPUs (where their port/pipe resource counters are known) I've tried to add to the existing model mappings. These are untested but don't represent a regression to current llvm-exegesis behaviour for these CPUs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55432 llvm-svn: 348617
2018-12-08 01:48:40 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"bdver1", BdVer2PfmCounters>;
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
2018-10-28 04:46:30 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"bdver2", BdVer2PfmCounters>;
[X86] Extend pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis Extension to rL348617, turns out llvm-exegesis doesn't need to match the perf counter name against a scheduler model resource name - so I've added a few more counters that I could find in the libpfm4 source code (and fix a typo in the knl/knm retired_uops counter - which uses 'all' instead of 'any'). llvm-svn: 348721
2018-12-09 21:45:15 +08:00
def BdVer3PfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"SrFPU0", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe0 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SrFPU1", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe1 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"SrFPU2", "dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_pipe2 + dispatched_fpu_ops:ops_dual_pipe2">
];
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"bdver3", BdVer3PfmCounters>;
def : PfmCountersBinding<"bdver4", BdVer3PfmCounters>;
def BtVer1PfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"BtFPU0", "dispatched_fpu:pipe0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"BtFPU1", "dispatched_fpu:pipe1">
];
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"btver1", BtVer1PfmCounters>;
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def BtVer2PfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cpu_clk_unhalted">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"JFPU0", "dispatched_fpu:pipe0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"JFPU1", "dispatched_fpu:pipe1">
];
[X86][BtVer2] Added Jaguar cpu cycle counter to permit llvm-exegesis latency testing Ideally we'd be able to test a CPU by using __builtin_readcyclecounter()/RDTSC instead (PR37193) if a model/cycle-counter is not specified. NOTE: Jaguar PMCs don't give good coverage of resource pipes specified in the model (at the macro-vs-micro-op levels) but we should be able to cover at least a few resources. llvm-svn: 333190
2018-05-24 22:54:32 +08:00
}
[MCSched] Bind PFM Counters to the CPUs instead of the SchedModel. Summary: The pfm counters are now in the ExegesisTarget rather than the MCSchedModel (PR39165). This also compresses the pfm counter tables (PR37068). Reviewers: RKSimon, gchatelet Subscribers: mgrang, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52932 llvm-svn: 345243
2018-10-25 15:44:01 +08:00
def : PfmCountersBinding<"btver2", BtVer2PfmCounters>;
[X86] Improve pfm counter coverage for llvm-exegesis This patch attempts to improve pfm perf counter coverage for all the x86 CPUs that libpfm4 supports. Intel/AMD CPU families tend to share names for cycle/uops counters so even if they don't have a scheduler model yet they can at least use the default values (checked against the libpfm4 source code). The remaining CPUs (where their port/pipe resource counters are known) I've tried to add to the existing model mappings. These are untested but don't represent a regression to current llvm-exegesis behaviour for these CPUs. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55432 llvm-svn: 348617
2018-12-08 01:48:40 +08:00
def ZnVer1PfmCounters : ProcPfmCounters {
let CycleCounter = PfmCounter<"cycles_not_in_halt">;
let UopsCounter = PfmCounter<"retired_uops">;
let IssueCounters = [
PfmIssueCounter<"ZnFPU0", "fpu_pipe_assignment:total0">,
PfmIssueCounter<"ZnFPU1", "fpu_pipe_assignment:total1">,
PfmIssueCounter<"ZnFPU2", "fpu_pipe_assignment:total2">,
PfmIssueCounter<"ZnFPU3", "fpu_pipe_assignment:total3">,
PfmIssueCounter<"ZnDivider", "div_op_count">
];
}
def : PfmCountersBinding<"znver1", ZnVer1PfmCounters>;