[llvm-dev] [llvm-exegesis] [RFC] Renaming Uops- classes

Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jan 17 01:05:10 PST 2020


Yes I concur. Thx for the suggestion MiloŇ°!

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:03 AM Clement Courbet <courbet at google.com> wrote:

> Hi Milos,
>
> I think this is a good idea. This only applies to to
> {Latency,Uops}SnippetGenerator though (renamed to
> {Serial,Parallel}SnippetGenerator) - I think the benchmark runners
> themselves should remained the same, as they are really measuring latency
> or uops.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 8:04 PM Milos Stojanovic <
> Milos.Stojanovic at rt-rk.com> wrote:
>
>> Since the option of running -mode=inverse_throughput was added to
>> llvm-exegesis the names of classes like UopsSnippetGenerator and
>> UopsBenchmarkRunner, that this mode shares with uops, started to be less
>> descriptive.
>>
>> Inverse_throughput doesn't use the uops counters, so for example, the
>> instruction layout shared between these two modes is really connected to
>> parallelism, not uops. It's doubly confusing for architectures that don't
>> even have any uops counters to constantly use classes with Uops in their
>> name.
>> Because of this it would probably be easier to follow the code if the
>> shared classes/methods would be renamed to something like Parallel- instead
>> of Uops-. To keep it consistent Latency- could also be renamed to Serial-.
>>
>> I can submit a patch if you think making this change would be reasonable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> MiloŇ°
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200117/eb19d2d2/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list