This is mostly for the benefit of the LBR latency mode.
Right now, it performs no checking. If this is run on non-supported hardware, it will produce all zeroes for latency.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85254
New change: Updated lit.local.cfg to use pass the right argument to llvm-exegesis to actually request the LBR mode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D88670
This reverts commit 4fcd1a8e65 as
`llvm/test/tools/llvm-exegesis/X86/lbr/mov-add.s` failed on hosts
without LBR supported if the build has LIBPFM enabled. On that host,
`perf_event_open` fails with `EOPNOTSUPP` on LBR config. That change's
basic assumption
> If this is run on a non-supported hardware, it will produce all zeroes for latency.
could not stand as `perf_event_open` system call will fail if the
underlying hardware really don't have LBR supported.
This is mostly for the benefit of the LBR latency mode.
Right now, it performs no checking. If this is run on non-supported hardware, it will produce all zeroes for latency.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85254
Starting with Skylake, the LBR contains the precise number of cycles between the two
consecutive branches.
Making use of this will hopefully make the measurements more precise than the
existing methods of using RDTSC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77422
New change: check for existence of field `cycles` in perf_branch_entry before enabling this mode.
This should prevent compilation errors when building for older kernel whose headers don't support it.
From @erichkeane:
```
This patch doesn't seem to build for me:
/iusers/ekeane1/workspaces/llvm-project/llvm/tools/llvm-exegesis/lib/X86/X86Counter.cpp: In function ‘llvm::Error llvm::exegesis::parseDataBuffer(const char*, size_t, const void*, const void*, llvm::SmallVector<long int, 4>*)’:
/iusers/ekeane1/workspaces/llvm-project/llvm/tools/llvm-exegesis/lib/X86/X86Counter.cpp:99:37: error: ‘struct perf_branch_entry’ has no member named ‘cycles’
CycleArray->push_back(Entry.cycles);
I'm on RHEL7, so I have kernel 3.10, so it doesn't have 'cycles'.
According ot this: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.3/source/include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h#L963 kernel 4.3 is the first time that 'cycles' appeared in this structure.
```
Starting with Skylake, the LBR contains the precise number of cycles between the two
consecutive branches.
Making use of this will hopefully make the measurements more precise than the
existing methods of using RDTSC.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D77422
Vy Nguyen