: Xionghu Luo
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 6:41 PM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld ; Andi Kleen
; Joseph Myers ; Jan Hubicka
; gcc
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
[You don't often get email from yinyuefen...@gmail.com. Learn why this is
important at https://aka.ms
Hubicka
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 12:27 AM
To: David Edelsohn
Cc: Eugene Rozenfeld ; Martin Liska
; Xinliang David Li ; gcc
; Andi Kleen ; Joseph Myers
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:13 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc
> wrote:
> &g
Message-
From: David Edelsohn
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 3:38 PM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld ; Jan Hubicka
; Martin Liska ; Xinliang David Li
Cc: Andi Kleen ; Joseph Myers ;
gcc
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
[You don't often get email from dje@gmail.com. Learn why
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:13 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello GCC community.
> >
> > I started this thread on the state of AutoFDO in GCC more than a year ago.
> > Here is the first message in the thread:
> > https://gcc.gn
On 2022/7/27 09:31, Xionghu Luo wrote:
On 2022/7/27 04:12, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote:
Hello GCC community.
I started this thread on the state of AutoFDO in GCC more than a year
ago. Here is the first message in the thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235860.html
On 2022/7/27 04:12, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote:
Hello GCC community.
I started this thread on the state of AutoFDO in GCC more than a year ago. Here
is the first message in the thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235860.html
Since then I committed a number of patches
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 4:13 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hello GCC community.
>
> I started this thread on the state of AutoFDO in GCC more than a year ago.
> Here is the first message in the thread:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235860.htm
Hello GCC community.
I started this thread on the state of AutoFDO in GCC more than a year ago. Here
is the first message in the thread:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235860.html
Since then I committed a number of patches to revive AutoFDO in GCC:
Fix a typo in an AutoFDO error
using is 5.8.18.
Thanks,
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Andi Kleen
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 2:46 PM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc
Cc: Xinliang David Li ; Richard Biener
; Eugene Rozenfeld
; Jan Hubicka
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc
2 PM
> To: Eugene Rozenfeld
> Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang
> David Li ; Jan Hubicka ;
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wenlei He
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
>
> Thanks. Good to know the build works with newer protobuf.
>
> Wei.
>
> On Wed, May 26
ubject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
Thanks. Good to know the build works with newer protobuf.
Wei.
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:40 PM Eugene Rozenfeld
wrote:
>
> 3.0.0 is the latest supported version on Ubuntu 18.04. I verified that the
> build works on Ubuntu 20.04 with
sion 3.6.1.3.
>
> Eugene
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wei Mi
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:07 PM
> To: Eugene Rozenfeld
> Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang
> David Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> Wenlei He
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Sta
; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David
Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wenlei
He
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
I checked the source of protobuf 3.0.0 and it didn't contain the operator[] in
RepeatedField. Need to install a newer version of protobuf.
Thanks,
Wei.
On Tue, May 25, 2021
]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wei Mi
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 9:17 AM
> To: Eugene Rozenfeld
> Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang
> David Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> Wenlei He
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
>
>
3.0.0-9.1ubuntu1 amd64 [installed]
-Original Message-
From: Wei Mi
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 9:17 AM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld
Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David
Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wenlei
He
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
It looks like
4 PM
> To: Eugene Rozenfeld
> Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang
> David Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> Wenlei He
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
>
> It isn't exposed on my platform either. Looks like a bug in
> perf_data
: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
It isn't exposed on my platform either. Looks like a bug in perf_data_converter
(i.e., quipper). Could you try adding #include in
third_party/perf_data_converter/src/quipper/huge_page_deducer.cc and see if it
fixes the problem? If it works, I will need
021 8:12 PM
> To: Eugene Rozenfeld
> Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang
> David Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org;
> Wenlei He
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
>
>
>
> Sorry, I added dependency for create_gcov but missed it for dump_gcov. Fixed
Mi
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 8:12 PM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld
Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David
Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wenlei
He
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
Sorry, I added dependency for create_gcov but missed it for dump_gcov. Fixed it
at
https
./profile.cc:5:
> ../third_party/perf_data_converter/src/quipper/compat/proto.h:16:10: fatal
> error: perf_stat.pb.h: No such file or directory
> #include "perf_stat.pb.h"
> ^~~~
> compilation terminated.
>
> What is supposed to generate p
ild stopped: subcommand failed.
Thanks,
Eugene
From: Wei Mi
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 9:37 AM
To: Eugene Rozenfeld
Cc: Andi Kleen ; Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David
Li ; Jan Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wenlei
He
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
It is a proto library build
ilation terminated.
>
>
>
> What is supposed to generate perf_stat.pb.h?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
>
>
> *From:* Wei Mi
> *Sent:* Monday, May 10, 2021 4:47 PM
> *To:* Andi Kleen
> *Cc:* Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David Li ;
> Jan Hubicka
May 10, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Hongtao Yu ; Xinliang David Li ; Jan
Hubicka ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Eugene Rozenfeld
; Wenlei He
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
https://github.com/google/autofdo<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2F
https://github.com/google/autofdo has been updated. Now
create_gcov/dump_gcov are added back and can be built separately.
Please look at "2.2 Build autofdo tool for gcc" in
https://github.com/google/autofdo#readme
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 10:40 PM Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:55:50PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2021, Andi Kleen via Gcc wrote:
>
> > It's difficult to find now because it was a branch in the old SVN that
> > wasn't
> > converted. Sadly the great git conversion was quite lossy.
>
> All branches and tags,
On Mon, 10 May 2021, Andi Kleen via Gcc wrote:
> It's difficult to find now because it was a branch in the old SVN that wasn't
> converted. Sadly the great git conversion was quite lossy.
All branches and tags, including deleted ones, were converted (under
not-fetched-by-default refs in some
On 5/9/2021 10:01 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
With my tests, AutoFDO could achieve almost half of the effect of
instrumentation FDO on real applications such as MySQL 8.0.20 .
Likely this could be improved with some of the missing changes. Apparently
discriminator support is worth quite a bit
>
> > With my tests, AutoFDO could achieve almost half of the effect of
> > instrumentation FDO on real applications such as MySQL 8.0.20 .
>
> Likely this could be improved with some of the missing changes. Apparently
> discriminator support is worth quite a bit especially on dense C++ code
>
With my tests, AutoFDO could achieve almost half of the effect of
instrumentation FDO on real applications such as MySQL 8.0.20 .
Likely this could be improved with some of the missing changes.
Apparently discriminator support is worth quite a bit especially on
dense C++ code bases.
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I`m using GCC 9.3 AutoFDO and the old version create_gcov on arm64
> > and it works well. Actually it support not only LBR like mode but
> > also inst_retired even cycles event, which`s the early implementation
> > of AutoFDO[1]. There is no difference in output format of
Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc writes:
> Is the format produced by create_gcov and expected by GCC under
> -fauto-rpofile documented somewhere? How is it different from .gcda
> used in FDO, e.g., as described here:
> http://src.gnu-darwin.org/src/contrib/gcc/gcov-io.h.html?
I believe it's very
172060...@hdu.edu.cn writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I`m using GCC 9.3 AutoFDO and the old version create_gcov on arm64
> and it works well. Actually it support not only LBR like mode but
> also inst_retired even cycles event, which`s the early implementation
> of AutoFDO[1]. There is no difference in
@gcc.gnu.org; Eugene Rozenfeld
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:00 AM Richard Biener
mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi, th
Hi all,
I`m using GCC 9.3 AutoFDO and the old version create_gcov on arm64
and it works well. Actually it support not only LBR like mode but
also inst_retired even cycles event, which`s the early implementation
of AutoFDO[1]. There is no difference in output format of create_gcov
between
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 06:40:56PM +, Hongtao Yu wrote:
>Andi, thanks for pointing out the perf script issues. Can you please
>elaborate a bit on the exact issue you have seen? We’ve been using
>specific output of perf script such as mmap, LBR and callstack events
>filtered by
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 06:40:56PM +, Hongtao Yu wrote:
>Andi, thanks for pointing out the perf script issues. Can you please
>elaborate a bit on the exact issue you have seen? We’ve been using
>specific output of perf script such as mmap, LBR and callstack events
>filtered by
with extended uses.
Thanks,
Hongtao
From: Xinliang David Li
Date: Monday, April 26, 2021 at 11:05 AM
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Jan Hubicka , gcc@gcc.gnu.org , Wei Mi
, Eugene Rozenfeld , Wenlei He
, Hongtao Yu
Subject: Re: State of AutoFDO in GCC
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andi Kleen
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:00 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> >There are multiple directional changes in this new tool:
> >1) it uses perf-script trace output (in text) as input profile data;
>
> I suspect this will break regularly too
>
> (I personally did numerous changes to perf script output,
>There are multiple directional changes in this new tool:
>1) it uses perf-script trace output (in text) as input profile data;
I suspect this will break regularly too
(I personally did numerous changes to perf script output, and also
wrote a lot of parsing scripts)
The perf script
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 8:12 AM Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jan Hubicka writes:
> >
> > Is there a way to get this working w/o using older perf?
>
> It's usually rather simple to fix up autofdo for new perf.
> I did it before here
>
> https://github.com/andikleen/autofdo/commits/perf4-3
>
> I think it
Jan Hubicka writes:
>
> Is there a way to get this working w/o using older perf?
It's usually rather simple to fix up autofdo for new perf.
I did it before here
https://github.com/andikleen/autofdo/commits/perf4-3
I think it would work always if it just ignored unknown records
(which is quite
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 4:18 PM Xinliang David Li
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:07 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> David,
>> >
>> > The text format is documented here:
>> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html
>> > The binary format is not documented. The binary format is not
>>
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 12:07 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> David,
> >
> > The text format is documented here:
> > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html
> > The binary format is not documented. The binary format is not guaranteed
> to
> > be backward compatible, so sharing the same format may
David,
>
> The text format is documented here:
> https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html
> The binary format is not documented. The binary format is not guaranteed to
> be backward compatible, so sharing the same format may not be the best way
> as changes for clang may break GCC.
>
> Since
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:28 PM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:27 AM Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:16 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > It uses create_llvm_prof tool which is in the same git repo. The
> data
> > >>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:27 AM Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:16 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > It uses create_llvm_prof tool which is in the same git repo. The data
> >> > parsing part is shared with create_gcov, but the writer is obviously
>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:27 AM Xinliang David Li
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:16 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It uses create_llvm_prof tool which is in the same git repo. The data
>> > parsing part is shared with create_gcov, but the writer is obviously
>> > different for the
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:16 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > It uses create_llvm_prof tool which is in the same git repo. The data
> > parsing part is shared with create_gcov, but the writer is obviously
> > different for the two tools.
>
> OK and what are the main differences between llvmand gcc
> Hi.
>
> The current situation is that AutoFDO doesn't work with pretty simple
> test-cases
> we have in testsuite:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71672
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81379
>
> These are ~5 years old and nothing has happened.
>
> I'm pretty
>
> It uses create_llvm_prof tool which is in the same git repo. The data
> parsing part is shared with create_gcov, but the writer is obviously
> different for the two tools.
OK and what are the main differences between llvmand gcc format?
Honza
>
> David
>
>
> > Honza
> > >
> > > David
> >
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:54 AM Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:18 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/23/21 9:00 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi, the create_gcov tool
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:18 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> > On 4/23/21 9:00 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that
> > it
> > >> was only
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:18 AM Martin Liška wrote:
> On 4/23/21 9:00 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that
> it
> >> was only used with Google
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:00 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that it
> > was only used with Google GCC branch, but it is actually used with GCC
> > trunk as
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:18 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 4/23/21 9:00 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that it
> >> was only used with Google
On 4/23/21 9:00 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that it
>> was only used with Google GCC branch, but it is actually used with GCC
>> trunk as well.
>>
>>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:28 AM Xinliang David Li via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that it
> was only used with Google GCC branch, but it is actually used with GCC
> trunk as well.
>
> Given that, the tool will be restored in the github repo. It
Hi, the create_gcov tool was probably removed with the assumption that it
was only used with Google GCC branch, but it is actually used with GCC
trunk as well.
Given that, the tool will be restored in the github repo. It seems to build
and work fine with the regression test.
The tool may ust
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:16 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 4/22/21 9:58 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC documentation for AutoFDO points to create_gcov tool that converts
> > perf.data file into gcov format that can be consumed by gcc with
> > -fauto-profile
> On 4/22/21 9:58 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote:
> > GCC documentation for AutoFDO points to create_gcov tool that converts
> > perf.data file into gcov format that can be consumed by gcc with
> > -fauto-profile (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html,
> >
On 4/22/21 9:58 PM, Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc wrote:
> GCC documentation for AutoFDO points to create_gcov tool that converts
> perf.data file into gcov format that can be consumed by gcc with
> -fauto-profile (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html,
>
GCC documentation for AutoFDO points to create_gcov tool that converts
perf.data file into gcov format that can be consumed by gcc with -fauto-profile
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html,
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AutoFDO/Tutorial).
I noticed that the source code for
62 matches
Mail list logo
