Fix the bitrotted profile feedback build
The profile feedback build support had bitrotted. This patchkit fixes it and improves it slightly by adding a new profile-fast target.
-Andi
threads / patch / 37061
patch, 5 partsDon't define away __attribute__ on gcc
Subject: [PATCH 2/5] Don't define away __attribute__ on gcc
[PATCH 1/5] Use BASIC_FLAGS for profile feedback
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Use BASIC_CFLAGS instead of CFLAGS to set up the profile feedback option in the Makefile.
This allows still overriding CFLAGS on the make command line without disabling profile feedback.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- Makefile | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Show changes to Makefile +2 −2
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 07ea105..a9770ac 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1552,13 +1552,13 @@ endif PROFILE_DIR := $(CURDIR) ifeq ("$(PROFILE)","GEN") - CFLAGS += -fprofile-generate=$(PROFILE_DIR) -DNO_NORETURN=1 + BASIC_CFLAGS += -fprofile-generate=$(PROFILE_DIR) -DNO_NORETURN=1 EXTLIBS += -lgcov export CCACHE_DISABLE = t V = 1 else ifneq ("$(PROFILE)","") - CFLAGS += -fprofile-use=$(PROFILE_DIR) -fprofile-correction -DNO_NORETURN=1 + BASIC_CFLAGS += -fprofile-use=$(PROFILE_DIR) -fprofile-correction -DNO_NORETURN=1 export CCACHE_DISABLE = t V = 1 endif
-- 2.0.1
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Profile feedback sets -DNO_NORETURN, which causes the compat header file to go into a default #else block. That #else block defines away __attribute__(). Doing so causes all kinds of problems with the Linux and gcc system headers: in particular it makes the xmmintrin.h headers error out, breaking the build.
Don't define away __attribute__ when __GNUC__ is set.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- git-compat-util.h | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Show changes to git-compat-util.h +2 −0
diff --git a/git-compat-util.h b/git-compat-util.h index 96f5554..01e8695 100644 --- a/git-compat-util.h +++ b/git-compat-util.h @@ -291,10 +291,12 @@ extern char *gitbasename(char *); #else #define NORETURN #define NORETURN_PTR +#ifndef __GNUC__ #ifndef __attribute__ #define __attribute__(x) #endif #endif +#endif /* The sentinel attribute is valid from gcc version 4.0 */ #if defined(__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ >= 4)
-- 2.0.1
[PATCH 3/5] Run the perf test suite for profile feedback too
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Open: If the perf test suite is representative enough it may be reasonable to only run that and skip the much longer full test suite. Thoughts?
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- Makefile | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Show changes to Makefile +1 −0
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index a9770ac..ba64be9 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1647,6 +1647,7 @@ ifeq ($(filter all,$(MAKECMDGOALS)),all) all:: profile-clean $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN all $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 test + $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 perf endif endif
-- 2.0.1
Junio C HamanoRe: [PATCH 3/5] Run the perf test suite for profile feedback too
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > > Open: If the perf test suite is representative enough it may > be reasonable to only run that and skip the much longer full > test suite. Thoughts?
I do not think it right now is representative, nor it was meant to become so. The operations are those that people cared about and tuned, and hopefully it would cover stuff actual end users care about in the real life, though.
Show 17 quoted lines
> > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > --- > Makefile | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > index a9770ac..ba64be9 100644 > --- a/Makefile > +++ b/Makefile > @@ -1647,6 +1647,7 @@ ifeq ($(filter all,$(MAKECMDGOALS)),all) > all:: profile-clean > $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN all > $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 test > + $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 perf > endif > endif
Re: [PATCH 3/5] Run the perf test suite for profile feedback too
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:06:57PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes: > > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > > > > Open: If the perf test suite is representative enough it may > > be reasonable to only run that and skip the much longer full > > test suite. Thoughts? > > I do not think it right now is representative, nor it was meant to > become so. The operations are those that people cared about and > tuned, and hopefully it would cover stuff actual end users care > about in the real life, though.
I ended up answering the question by creating two separate makefile targets in the next patch.
profile to run the full test suite and profile-fast to run only the performance test. profile-fast as the name implies is a lot faster to build, and fast enough that it's not annoying.
I'll remove the "Open"
-Andi
[PATCH 4/5] Fix profile feedback with -jN and add profile-fast
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Profile feedback always failed for me with -jN. The problem was that there was no implicit ordering between the profile generate stage and the profile use stage. So some objects in the later stage would be linked with profile generate objects, and fail due to the missing -lgcov.
This adds a new profile target that implicitely enforces the correct ordering by using submakes. Plus a profile-install target to also install. This is also nicer to type that PROFILE=...
Plus I always run the performance test suite now for the full profile run.
In addition I also added a profile-fast / profile-fast-install target the only runs the performance test suite instead of the whole test suite. This significantly speeds up the profile build, which was totally dominated by test suite run time. However it may have less coverage of course.
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- INSTALL | 14 ++++++++++++-- Makefile | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Show changes to 2 files +29 −6
INSTALL, Makefile
diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL index ba01e74..6ec7a24 100644 --- a/INSTALL +++ b/INSTALL @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ set up install paths (via config.mak.autogen), so you can write instead If you're willing to trade off (much) longer build time for a later faster git you can also do a profile feedback build with - $ make prefix=/usr PROFILE=BUILD all + $ make prefix=/usr profile # make prefix=/usr PROFILE=BUILD install This will run the complete test suite as training workload and then @@ -36,10 +36,20 @@ rebuild git with the generated profile feedback. This results in a git which is a few percent faster on CPU intensive workloads. This may be a good tradeoff for distribution packagers. +Alternatively you can run profile feedback only with the git benchmark +suite. This runs significantly faster than the full test suite, but +has less coverage: + + $ make prefix=/usr profile-fast + # make prefix=/usr PROFILE=BUILD install + Or if you just want to install a profile-optimized version of git into your home directory, you could run: - $ make PROFILE=BUILD install + $ make profile-install + +or + $ make profile-fast-install As a caveat: a profile-optimized build takes a *lot* longer since the git tree must be built twice, and in order for the profiling diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index ba64be9..a760402 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -1643,13 +1643,20 @@ SHELL = $(SHELL_PATH) all:: shell_compatibility_test ifeq "$(PROFILE)" "BUILD" -ifeq ($(filter all,$(MAKECMDGOALS)),all) -all:: profile-clean +all:: profile +endif + +profile:: profile-clean $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN all $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 test $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 perf -endif -endif + $(MAKE) PROFILE=USE all + +profile-fast: profile-clean + $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN all + $(MAKE) PROFILE=GEN -j1 perf + $(MAKE) PROFILE=USE all + all:: $(ALL_PROGRAMS) $(SCRIPT_LIB) $(BUILT_INS) $(OTHER_PROGRAMS) GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS ifneq (,$X) @@ -2336,6 +2343,12 @@ mergetools_instdir_SQ = $(subst ','\'',$(mergetools_instdir)) install_bindir_programs := $(patsubst %,%$X,$(BINDIR_PROGRAMS_NEED_X)) $(BINDIR_PROGRAMS_NO_X) +profile-install: profile + $(MAKE) install + +profile-fast-install: profile-fast + $(MAKE) install + install: all $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(bindir_SQ)' $(INSTALL) -d -m 755 '$(DESTDIR_SQ)$(gitexec_instdir_SQ)'
-- 2.0.1
[PATCH 5/5] Add a little script to compare two make perf runs
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> --- diff-res | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) create mode 100755 diff-res
Show changes to diff-res +26 −0
diff --git a/diff-res b/diff-res new file mode 100755 index 0000000..90d57be --- /dev/null +++ b/diff-res @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +#!/usr/bin/python +# compare two make perf output file +# this should be the results only without any header +import argparse +import math, operator +from collections import OrderedDict + +ap = argparse.ArgumentParser() +ap.add_argument('file1', type=argparse.FileType('r')) +ap.add_argument('file2', type=argparse.FileType('r')) +args = ap.parse_args() + +cmp = (OrderedDict(), OrderedDict()) +for f, k in zip((args.file1, args.file2), cmp): + for j in f: + num = j[59:63] + name = j[:59] + k[name] = float(num) + +for j in cmp[0].keys(): + print j, cmp[1][j] - cmp[0][j] + +def geomean(l): + return math.pow(reduce(operator.mul, filter(lambda x: x != 0.0, l)), 1.0 / len(l)) + +print "geomean %.2f -> %.2f" % (geomean(cmp[0].values()), geomean(cmp[1].values()))
-- 2.0.1
Bert WesargRe: [PATCH 5/5] Add a little script to compare two make perf runs
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
Show 40 quoted lines
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> diff-res | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> create mode 100755 diff-res
>
> diff --git a/diff-res b/diff-res
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..90d57be
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/diff-res
> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> +#!/usr/bin/python
> +# compare two make perf output file
> +# this should be the results only without any header
> +import argparse
> +import math, operator
> +from collections import OrderedDict
> +
> +ap = argparse.ArgumentParser()
> +ap.add_argument('file1', type=argparse.FileType('r'))
> +ap.add_argument('file2', type=argparse.FileType('r'))
> +args = ap.parse_args()
> +
> +cmp = (OrderedDict(), OrderedDict())
> +for f, k in zip((args.file1, args.file2), cmp):
> + for j in f:
> + num = j[59:63]
> + name = j[:59]
> + k[name] = float(num)
> +
> +for j in cmp[0].keys():
> + print j, cmp[1][j] - cmp[0][j]
> +
> +def geomean(l):
> + return math.pow(reduce(operator.mul, filter(lambda x: x != 0.0, l)), 1.0 / len(l))
> +
> +print "geomean %.2f -> %.2f" % (geomean(cmp[0].values()), geomean(cmp[1].values()))a justification why the geometric mean is used here would increase my confident significantly.
It calculates wrong values anyway iff there are zeros in the sampling set.
Thanks.
Bert
Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add a little script to compare two make perf runs
> a justification why the geometric mean is used here would increase my > confident significantly.
It's just a standard way to summarize sets of benchmarks. For example SPEC uses the same approach.
Anyways the script is not essential to the rest of the profile feedback feature. Just ignore it if it's controversal.
-Andi
Bert WesargRe: [PATCH 5/5] Add a little script to compare two make perf runs
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
>> a justification why the geometric mean is used here would increase my >> confident significantly. > > It's just a standard way to summarize sets of benchmarks. For example SPEC > uses the same approach.
No, SPEC would have calculated the geometric mean of the ratios cmp[1][j] / cmp[0][j]. And this should also only be used under the assumption that there is a multiplicative correlation.
Bert