summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/test/tools/llvm-mca/X86/scheduler-queue-usage.s
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* [X86] AMD Znver2 (Rome) Scheduler enablementGanesh Gopalasubramanian2020-01-101-0/+7
| | | | | | | | | | | | The patch gives out the details of the znver2 scheduler model. There are few improvements with respect to execution units, latencies and throughput when compared with znver1. The tests that were present for znver1 for llvm-mca tool were replicated. The latencies, execution units, timeline and throughput information are updated for znver2. Reviewers: craig.topper, Simon Pilgrim Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66088
* [NFC][MCA][X86] Add baseline test coverage for AMD Barcelona (aka K10, fam10h)Roman Lebedev2019-06-151-0/+10
| | | | | | Looking into sched model for that CPU ... llvm-svn: 363497
* [llvm-mca][scheduler-stats] Print issued micro opcodes per cycle. NFCIAndrea Di Biagio2019-04-081-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | It makes more sense to print out the number of micro opcodes that are issued every cycle rather than the number of instructions issued per cycle. This behavior is also consistent with the dispatch-stats: numbers from the two views can now be easily compared. llvm-svn: 357919
* AMD BdVer2 (Piledriver) Initial Scheduler modelRoman Lebedev2018-10-271-2/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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
* [NFC][X86] Baseline tests for AMD BdVer2 (Piledriver) Scheduler modelRoman Lebedev2018-10-271-0/+10
| | | | | | | | | | | | Adding the baseline tests in a preparatory NFC commit, so that the actual commit shows the *diff*. Yes, i'm aware that a few of these codegen-based sched tests are testing wrong instructions, i will fix that afterwards. For https://reviews.llvm.org/D52779 llvm-svn: 345462
* [utils] Ensure that update_mca_test_checks.py writes prefixes in ↵Greg Bedwell2018-10-041-11/+11
| | | | | | alphabetical order llvm-svn: 343783
* [llvm-mca] Improved report generated by the SchedulerStatistics view.Andrea Di Biagio2018-08-271-20/+74
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Before this patch, the SchedulerStatistics only printed the maximum number of buffer entries consumed in each scheduler's queue at a given point of the simulation. This patch restructures the reported table, and adds an extra field named "Average number of used buffer entries" to it. This patch also uses different colors to help identifying bottlenecks caused by high scheduler's buffer pressure. llvm-svn: 340746
* [X86][Znver1] Specify Register Files, RCU; FP scheduler capacity.Roman Lebedev2018-06-201-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: First off: i do not have any access to that processor, so this is purely theoretical, no benchmarks. I have been looking into b**d**ver2 scheduling profile, and while cross-referencing the existing b**t**ver2, znver1 profiles, and the reference docs (`Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family {15,16,17}h Processors`), i have noticed that only b**t**ver2 scheduling profile specifies these. Also, there is no mca test coverage. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, courbet, GGanesh, andreadb Reviewed By: GGanesh Subscribers: gbedwell, vprasad, ddibyend, shivaram, Ashutosh, javed.absar, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47676 llvm-svn: 335099
* [MCA] Add -summary-view optionRoman Lebedev2018-06-151-28/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: While that is indeed a quite interesting summary stat, there are cases where it does not really add anything other than consuming extra lines. Declutters the output of D48190. Reviewers: RKSimon, andreadb, courbet, craig.topper Reviewed By: andreadb Subscribers: javed.absar, gbedwell, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48209 llvm-svn: 334833
* [MCA][x86][NFC] Add tests for -register-file-stats, -scheduler-statsRoman Lebedev2018-06-151-0/+79
Summary: There does not seem to be any other tests for this. Split off from D47676. Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, courbet, andreadb Reviewed By: andreadb Subscribers: javed.absar, gbedwell, llvm-commits Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48190 llvm-svn: 334832
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud