On 4/11/2023 3:27 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > "Wu, Fei" <fei2...@intel.com> writes: > >> On 4/10/2023 6:36 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> >>> Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> writes: >>> >>>> On 4/6/23 00:46, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>>> If your aim is to examine JIT efficiency what is wrong with the current >>>>> "info jit" that you can access via the HMP? Also I'm wondering if its >>>>> time to remove the #ifdefs from CONFIG_PROFILER because I doubt the >>>>> extra data it collects is that expensive. >>>>> Richard, what do you think? >>>> >>>> What is it that you want from CONFIG_PROFILER that you can't get from perf? >>>> I've been tempted to remove CONFIG_PROFILER entirely. >>> >>> I think perf is pretty good at getting the hot paths in the translator >>> and pretty much all of the timer related stuff in CONFIG_PROFILER could >>> be dropped. However some of the additional information about TCG ops >>> usage and distribution is useful. That said last time I had a tilt at >>> this on the back of a GSoC project: >>> >>> Subject: [PATCH v9 00/13] TCG code quality tracking and perf integration >>> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:28:26 +0100 >>> Message-Id: <20191007152839.30804-1-alex.ben...@linaro.org> >>> >>> The series ended up moving all the useful bits of CONFIG_PROFILER into >>> tb stats which was dynamically controlled on a per TB basis. Now that >>> the perf integration stuff was merged maybe there is a simpler series to >>> be picked out of the remains? >>> >>> Fei Wu, >>> >>> Have you looked at the above series? Is that gathering the sort of >>> things you need? Is this all in service of examining the translation >>> quality of hot code? >>> >> Yes, it does have what I want, I suppose this wiki is for the series: >> https://wiki.qemu.org/Features/TCGCodeQuality > > Yes. > >> >> btw, the archive seems broken and cannot show the whole series: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg650258.html > > I have a v10 branch here: > > https://github.com/stsquad/qemu/tree/tcg/tbstats-and-perf-v10 > > I think the top two patches can be dropped on a re-base as the JIT/perf > integration is already merged. It might be a tricky re-base though. > Depends on how much churn there has been in the tree since. > I'd like to try it. Why has it not been merged upstream?
Thanks, Fei. >> >> Thanks, >> Fei. >> >>>> >>>> >>>> r~ >>> >>> > >
