Summary:
This will help for PR32326.
This shows the well-known issue with `RBP` and `R13` as base registers.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits, RKSimon, andreadb
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68646
llvm-svn: 374146
Summary:
This adds a `-max-configs-per-opcode` option to limit the number of
configs per opcode.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68642
llvm-svn: 374054
Summary:
Right now there are no snippet generators that emit the `Config` Field,
but I plan to add it to investigate LEA operands for PR32326.
What was broken was:
- `Config` Was not propagated up until the BenchmarkResult::Key.
- Clustering should really consider different configs as measuring
different things, so we should stabilize on (Opcode, Config) instead of
just Opcode.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits, lebedev.ri
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68629
llvm-svn: 374031
Summary:
Before this change the Executable function was made by duplicating the
snippet. This change adds a --repetion-mode={loop|duplicate} flag that
allows choosing between this behaviour and wrapping the snippet instructions
in a loop.
The new mode can help measurements when the snippet fits in the DSB by
short-cirtcuiting decoding. The loop adds a dec + jmp to the measurements, but
since these are not part of the critical path, they execute in parallel
with the measured code and do not impact measurements in practice.
Overview of the change:
- New SnippetRepetitor abstraction that handles repeating the snippet.
The assembler delegates repeating the instructions to this class.
- ExegesisTarget learns how to decrement loop counter and jump.
- Some refactoring of the assembler into FunctionFiller/BasicBlockFiller.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: mgorny, tschuett, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D68125
llvm-svn: 373083
Summary:
A *lot* of instructions have this special register.
It seems this never really worked, but i finally noticed it only
because it happened to break for `CMOV16rm` instruction.
We serialized that register as "" (empty string), which is naturally
'ignored' during deserialization, so we re-create a `MCInst` with
too few operands.
And when we then happened to try to resolve variant sched class
for this mis-serialized instruction, and the variant predicate
tried to read an operand that was out of bounds since we got less operands,
we crashed.
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41448 | PR41448 ]].
Reviewers: craig.topper, courbet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60517
llvm-svn: 358153
Summary:
D60041 / D60138 refactoring changed how CMOV/SETcc opcodes
are handled. concode is now an immediate, with it's own operand type.
This at least allows to not crash on the opcode.
However, this still won't generate all the snippets
with all the condcode enumerators. D60066 does that.
Reviewers: courbet, gchatelet
Reviewed By: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D60057
llvm-svn: 357841
Summary:
This is an alternative to D59539.
Let's suppose we have measured 4 different opcodes, and got: `0.5`, `1.0`, `1.5`, `2.0`.
Let's suppose we are using `-analysis-clustering-epsilon=0.5`.
By default now we will start processing the `0.5` point, find that `1.0` is it's neighbor, add them to a new cluster.
Then we will notice that `1.5` is a neighbor of `1.0` and add it to that same cluster.
Then we will notice that `2.0` is a neighbor of `1.5` and add it to that same cluster.
So all these points ended up in the same cluster.
This may or may not be a correct implementation of dbscan clustering algorithm.
But this is rather horribly broken for the reasons of comparing the clusters with the LLVM sched data.
Let's suppose all those opcodes are currently in the same sched cluster.
If i specify `-analysis-inconsistency-epsilon=0.5`, then no matter
the LLVM values this cluster will **never** match the LLVM values,
and thus this cluster will **always** be displayed as inconsistent.
The solution is obviously to split off some of these opcodes into different sched cluster.
But how do i do that? Out of 4 opcodes displayed in the inconsistency report,
which ones are the "bad ones"? Which ones are the most different from the checked-in data?
I'd need to go in to the `.yaml` and look it up manually.
The trivial solution is to, when creating clusters, don't use the full dbscan algorithm,
but instead "pick some unclustered point, pick all unclustered points that are it's neighbor,
put them all into a new cluster, repeat". And just so as it happens, we can arrive
at that algorithm by not performing the "add neighbors of a neighbor to the cluster" step.
But that won't work well once we teach analyze mode to operate in on-1D mode
(i.e. on more than a single measurement type at a time), because the clustering would
depend on the order of the measurements.
Instead, let's just create a single cluster per opcode, and put all the points of that opcode into said cluster.
And simultaneously check that every point in that cluster is a neighbor of every other point in the cluster,
and if they are not, the cluster (==opcode) is unstable.
This is //yet another// step to bring me closer to being able to continue cleanup of bdver2 sched model..
Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40880 | PR40880 ]].
Reviewers: courbet, gchatelet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: tschuett, jdoerfert, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59820
llvm-svn: 357152
Summary:
This prevents "Cannot encode high byte register in REX-prefixed instruction"
from happening on instructions that require REX encoding when AH & co
get selected.
On the down side, these 4 registers can no longer be selected
automatically, but this avoids having to expose all the X86 encoding
complexity.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, jdoerfert, llvm-commits, bdb
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59821
llvm-svn: 357003
Summary:
Up until the point i have looked in the source, i didn't even understood that
i can disable 'cluster' output. I have always silenced it via ` &> /dev/null`.
(And hoped it wasn't contributing much of the run time.)
While i expect that it has it's use-cases i never once needed it so far.
If i forget to silence it, console is completely flooded with that output.
How about not expecting users to opt-out of analyses,
but to explicitly specify the analyses that should be performed?
Reviewers: courbet, gchatelet
Reviewed By: courbet
Subscribers: tschuett, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57648
llvm-svn: 353021
Summary: This should avoid failing on old CPUs that do not have a cycle counter.
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55416
llvm-svn: 348740
Summary:
Add unit tests to check the support for each supported format to avoid
regressions such as the one in PR36906.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, lebedev.ri, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54144
llvm-svn: 346330
When fillMachineFunction generates a return on targets without a return opcode
(such as AArch64) it should pass an empty set of registers as the return
registers, not 0 which means register number zero.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53074
llvm-svn: 344139
A `defined(NDEBUG) && !defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP)` build does not call
writeEscaped and there will be no `SBWriteZeroLatency` in the output.
llvm-svn: 343751
Summary: The key is now the resource name, not the resource id.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, RKSimon, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52607
llvm-svn: 343208
Summary:
THis is a backwards-compatible change (existing files will work as
expected).
See PR39082.
Reviewers: gchatelet
Subscribers: tschuett, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52546
llvm-svn: 343108
Summary:
Right now we only have unit tests. This will allow testing the whole
tool. Even though We can't really check actual values, this will avoid
regressions such as PR39055.
Reviewers: gchatelet, alexshap
Subscribers: mgorny, tschuett, llvm-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52407
llvm-svn: 342953
Clement Courbet