On 5/13/24 3:13 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
On 5/13/24 11:49, Vineet Gupta wrote:
  500.perlbench_r-0 |  1,214,534,029,025 | 1,212,887,959,387 |
  500.perlbench_r-1 |    740,383,419,739 |   739,280,308,163 |
  500.perlbench_r-2 |    692,074,638,817 |   691,118,734,547 |
  502.gcc_r-0       |    190,820,141,435 |   190,857,065,988 |
  502.gcc_r-1       |    225,747,660,839 |   225,809,444,357 | <- -0.02%
  502.gcc_r-2       |    220,370,089,641 |   220,406,367,876 | <- -0.03%
  502.gcc_r-3       |    179,111,460,458 |   179,135,609,723 | <- -0.02%
  502.gcc_r-4       |    219,301,546,340 |   219,320,416,956 | <- -0.01%
  503.bwaves_r-0    |    278,733,324,691 |   278,733,323,575 | <- -0.01%
  503.bwaves_r-1    |    442,397,521,282 |   442,397,519,616 |
  503.bwaves_r-2    |    344,112,218,206 |   344,112,216,760 |
  503.bwaves_r-3    |    417,561,469,153 |   417,561,467,597 |
  505.mcf_r         |    669,319,257,525 |   669,318,763,084 |
  507.cactuBSSN_r   |  2,852,767,394,456 | 2,564,736,063,742 | <+ 10.10%

The small gcc regression seems like a tooling issue of some sort.
Looking at the topblocks, the insn sequences are exactly the same, only
the counts differ and its not obvious why.
Here's for gcc_r-1.


     > Block 0 @ 0x170ca, 12 insns, 87854493 times, 0.47%:

     00000000000170ca <find_base_term>:
        170ca:    7179                    add    sp,sp,-48
        170cc:    ec26                    sd    s1,24(sp)
        170ce:    e84a                    sd    s2,16(sp)
        170d0:    e44e                    sd    s3,8(sp)
        170d2:    f406                    sd    ra,40(sp)
        170d4:    f022                    sd    s0,32(sp)
        170d6:    84aa                    mv    s1,a0
        170d8:    03200913              li    s2,50
        170dc:    03d00993              li    s3,61
        170e0:    8526                    mv    a0,s1
        170e2:    001cd097              auipc    ra,0x1cd
        170e6:    bac080e7              jalr    -1108(ra) # 1e3c8e
     <ix86_delegitimize_address.lto_priv.0>

     > Block 1 @ 0x706d0a, 3 insns, 274713936 times, 0.37%:
     >  Block 2 @ 0x1e3c8e, 9 insns, 88507109 times, 0.35%:
     ...

     < Block 0 @ 0x170ca, 12 insns, 87869602 times, 0.47%:
     < Block 1 @ 0x706d42, 3 insns, 274608893 times, 0.36%:
     < Block 2 @ 0x1e3c94, 9 insns, 88526354 times, 0.35%:


FWIW, Greg internally has been looking at some of this and found some
issues in the bbv tooling, but I wish all of this was  shared/upstream
(QEMU bbv plugin) for people to compare notes and not discover/fix the
same issues over and again.
Yea, we all meant to coordinate on those plugins. The one we've got had some problems with hash collisions and when there's a hash collision it just produces total junk data. I chased a few of these down and fixed them about a year ago.

The other thing is qemu will split up blocks based on its internal notion of a translation page. So if you're looking at block level data you'll stumble over that as well. This aspect is the most troublesome problem I'm aware of right now.





Jeff

Reply via email to