istina ; Martin Jambor
> > ; Richard Sandiford ;
> > luoxhu via Gcc-patches
> > Cc: seg...@kernel.crashing.org; wschm...@linux.ibm.com;
> > li...@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka ; dje@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipa-inline: Improve growth accumulation for recursive
> > cal
tin Jambor
> ; Richard Sandiford ;
> luoxhu via Gcc-patches
> Cc: seg...@kernel.crashing.org; wschm...@linux.ibm.com;
> li...@gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka ; dje....@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipa-inline: Improve growth accumulation for recursive
> calls
>
>
>
> On 2
On 2020/9/12 01:36, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>>
>> can you please confirm that the difference between these two is all due to
>> the last option -fno-inline-functions-called-once ? Is LTo necessary?
>> I.e., can
>> you run the benchmark also built with the branch compiler and -m
Tamar Christina 于2020年9月12日周六 上午1:39写道：
> Hi Martin,
>
> >
> > can you please confirm that the difference between these two is all due
> to
> > the last option -fno-inline-functions-called-once ? Is LTo necessary?
> I.e., can
> > you run the benchmark also built with the branch compiler and
> -m
Hi Martin,
>
> can you please confirm that the difference between these two is all due to
> the last option -fno-inline-functions-called-once ? Is LTo necessary? I.e.,
> can
> you run the benchmark also built with the branch compiler and -mcpu=native
> -Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-inline-f
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 11 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
>> On Fri, Aug 21 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Honza's changes have been motivated to big extent as an enabler for
>> >> IPA-CP heuristics changes to actually speed up 548.exchange2_r.
>> >>
>> >> On my AMD Zen2 machine, th
gcc.gnu.org; Jan Hubicka
> ; dje....@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ipa-inline: Improve growth accumulation for recursive
> calls
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 21 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >>
> >> Honza's changes have been motivated to big extent as an
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 21 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
>>
>> Honza's changes have been motivated to big extent as an enabler for IPA-CP
>> heuristics changes to actually speed up 548.exchange2_r.
>>
>> On my AMD Zen2 machine, the run-time of exchange2 was 358 seconds two
>> weeks ago, this week it is 4
Hi Martin,
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Aug 20 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Really appreciate for your detailed explanation. BTW, My previous
> >> patch for PGO build on exchange2 takes this similar method by setting
> >> each cloned node to 1/10th of the frequency several month agao :)
>
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 20 2020, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>>
>> Really appreciate for your detailed explanation. BTW, My previous patch
>> for PGO build on exchange2 takes this similar method by setting each cloned
>> node to 1/10th of the frequency several month agao :)
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipe
Xionghu, thanks for working on fixing the exchange regression.
luoxhu via Gcc-patches writes:
> On 2020/8/13 20:52, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> Since there are no other callers outside of these specialized nodes, the
>>> guessed profile count should be same equal? Perf tool shows that even
>>> each s
Hi,
On 2020/8/13 20:52, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Since there are no other callers outside of these specialized nodes, the
>> guessed profile count should be same equal? Perf tool shows that even
>> each specialized node is called only once, none of them take same time for
>> each call:
>>
>>40.6
>
> Thanks for the information :) Tamar replied that there is another
> regression *on exchange2 is 11%.*, I've also rebased my code and confirmed
> it really getting even slower than before (revert the patch could pull the
> performance back)...
Yep, we need to figure out how to fix this - the
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:03:35PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On August 12, 2020 7:53:07 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >> From: Xiong Hu Luo
> > >> 523.xalancbmk_r +1.32%
> > >> 541.leela_r +1.51%
> > >> 548.exchange2_r +31.87%
> > >> 507.cactuBSSN_r +0.80%
> > >> 526.
Hi,
On 2020/8/13 01:53, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hello,
> with Martin we spent some time looking into exchange2 and my
> understanding of the problem is the following:
>
> There is the self recursive function digits_2 with the property that it
> has 10 nested loops and calls itself from the innermost
> Hello,
> with Martin we spent some time looking into exchange2 and my
> understanding of the problem is the following:
>
> There is the self recursive function digits_2 with the property that it
> has 10 nested loops and calls itself from the innermost.
> Now we do not do amazing job on guessing
Hi!
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 09:03:35PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 12, 2020 7:53:07 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> From: Xiong Hu Luo
> >> 523.xalancbmk_r +1.32%
> >> 541.leela_r +1.51%
> >> 548.exchange2_r +31.87%
> >> 507.cactuBSSN_r +0.80%
> >> 526.blender_r +1.25%
>
On August 12, 2020 7:53:07 PM GMT+02:00, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>Hello,
>with Martin we spent some time looking into exchange2 and my
>understanding of the problem is the following:
>
>There is the self recursive function digits_2 with the property that it
>has 10 nested loops and calls itself from th
Hello,
with Martin we spent some time looking into exchange2 and my
understanding of the problem is the following:
There is the self recursive function digits_2 with the property that it
has 10 nested loops and calls itself from the innermost.
Now we do not do amazing job on guessing the profile s
19 matches
Mail list logo
