[llvm] [llvm-profgen] Improve sample profile density (PR #92144)

[via llvm-commits]

================
@@ -768,9 +748,89 @@ void ProfileGenerator::populateBoundarySamplesForAllFunctions(
   }
 }
 
+// Note taht ideally the size should be the number of function's instruction.
+// However, for probe-based profile, we don't have the accurate instruction
+// count for each probe, Instead, the probe sample is the samples count for the
+// block, which is equivelant to total_instruction_samples/num_instruction in
+// one block. Hence, we use the number of probe as a proxy for the function's
+// size.
+void ProfileGeneratorBase::calculateBodySamplesAndSize(
+    const FunctionSamples &FSamples, uint64_t &TotalBodySamples,
----------------
WenleiHe wrote:

Even though `--update-total-samples` is off, how big of a difference do we expect between total samples and the way you compute it? I actually don't remember what is the source of discrepency, and still don't understand why we have regression. If they are close enough, it shouldn't matter for computing density? 

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92144