On 6/1/23 05:48, Wu, Fei wrote:
On 6/1/2023 7:51 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
"Wu, Fei" <fei2...@intel.com> writes:
On 5/30/2023 6:08 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
"Wu, Fei" <fei2...@intel.com> writes:
On 5/30/2023 1:01 PM, Wu, Fei wrote:
On 5/30/2023 12:07 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 5/29/23 04:49, Fei Wu wrote:
<snip>
----------------
IN:
Priv: 1; Virt: 0
0xffffffff800abe14: 864a mv a2,s2
0xffffffff800abe16: 85ce mv a1,s3
0xffffffff800abe18: 8526 mv a0,s1
0xffffffff800abe1a: 46bd addi a3,zero,15
0xffffffff800abe1c: fffff097 auipc ra,-4096
# 0xffffffff800aae1c
0xffffffff800abe20: cc0080e7 jalr ra,ra,-832
------------------------------
Look at the tb with phys:0x2abe14, although the first time IR takes
75274ns, but in the second command we can see it takes much less time
(Note IR time is accumulated).
So if the time for the same TB is not consistent, and the deviation
could be dominated by system events such as memory allocation instead of
codegen itself (?), I think it's less useful.
Alex, regarding dropping time profile, do you mean remove TB_JIT_TIME
completely?
I think so - perf would do a better job of separating system events from
the core code as it has better visibility of the whole system.
OK, got it.
Richard, can we reach the agreement here? If yes, I will remove
TB_JIT_TIME and all the time stuffs (dev_time, cpu_exec_time)
completely. We can still add it back if it proves to be useful. The only
concern is that tbstats replaces CONFIG_PROFILER but drops this function
from it.
Yes, I'm quite happy to drop all of the time stuff.
r~
