From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr>,
"Mathieu Othacehe" <othacehe@gnu.org>
Cc: 52283@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#52283] [PATCH 00/10] Tuning packages for CPU micro-architectures
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 13:47:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86zgpdoq7n.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zgpeqaq5.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
Hi Ludo,
Really cool! Thanks!
On Mon, 06 Dec 2021 at 11:38, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> wrote:
> Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:
>>> +(define-record-type <cpu>
>>> + (cpu architecture family model flags)
>>> + cpu?
>>> + (architecture cpu-architecture) ;string, from 'uname'
>>> + (family cpu-family) ;integer
>>> + (model cpu-model) ;integer
>>> + (flags cpu-flags)) ;set of strings
>>
>> When using the "--tune" transformation option with "native", we can
>> expect the current-cpu method to fill the <cpu> record correctly.
>>
>> However, when the user is passing a custom cpu name, it might be
>> incorrect. I think we should check the user input against a list of
>> valid/supported cpu architectures.
[...]
> Right. I’m a bit torn because I agree with the usability issue and
> solution you propose, but at the same time I know that maintaining a
> list of existing CPU names will be tedious and it’ll be annoying for
> users if they can’t just specify their CPU name (which they might want
> to do precisely when ‘--tune=native’ doesn’t determine the right name
> because it doesn’t know about it yet.)
I have not looked at all the details but this list of existing CPU name
is not somehow already maintained, no?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
+(define (cpu->gcc-architecture cpu)
+ "Return the architecture name, suitable for GCC's '-march' flag, that
+corresponds to CPU, a record as returned by 'current-cpu'."
+ (match (cpu-architecture cpu)
+ ("x86_64"
+ ;; Transcribed from GCC's 'host_detect_local_cpu' in driver-i386.c.
+ (or (and (= 6 (cpu-family cpu)) ;the "Pentium Pro" family
+ (letrec-syntax ((model (syntax-rules (=>)
+ ((_) #f)
+ ((_ (candidate => integers ...) rest
+ ...)
+ (or (and (= (cpu-model cpu) integers)
+ candidate)
+ ...
+ (model rest ...))))))
+ (model ("bonnel" => #x1c #x26)
+ ("silvermont" => #x37 #x4a #x4d #x5a #x5d)
+ ("core2" => #x0f #x17 #x1d)
+ ("nehalem" => #x1a #x1e #x1f #x2e)
+ ("westmere" => #x25 #x2c #x2f)
+ ("sandybridge" => #x2a #x2d)
+ ("ivybridge" => #x3a #x3e)
+ ("haswell" => #x3c #x3f #x45 #x46)
+ ("broadwell" => #x3d #x47 #x4f #x56)
+ ("skylake" => #x4e #x5e #x8e #x9e)
+ ("skylake-avx512" => #x55) ;TODO: cascadelake
+ ("knl" => #x57)
+ ("cannonlake" => #x66)
+ ("knm" => #x85))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>> Maybe the (guix cpu) and (gnu platform) modules should be merged somehow
>> to define the supported CPU micro-architectures:
>>
>> (define armv7-linux
>> (platform
>> (target "arm-linux-gnueabihf")
>> (system "armhf-linux")
>> (linux-architecture "arm")
>> (supported-march '("armv7" "armv7-a" "armv7ve"))
>>
>> we could then use those platform records in the (gnu ci) module to build
>> packages against all the supported micro architectures and remove the
>> "%x86-64-micro-architecture" variable you propose to introduce there.
>
> Hmm yeah, but it should be (guix platforms) then…
>
> Maybe that’s a broader refactoring we can keep for later? I agree it
> would be logical but I’m not sure how to nicely factorize things.
Yeah, I am always annoyed for the arguments of ’-s’ vs ’-t’, aside the
ugly backtrace. :-) The same (as we do elsewhere) is to somehow have
options ’--list-systems’ and ’--list-targets’ and handle incorrect
values; similar to “guix lint” for checkers or “guix graph” for types or
backends, etc. With potentially some hints. :-)
I also agree that’s unrelated to the current series. :-) This
refactoring could happen later, IMHO.
Cheers,
simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-06 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-04 20:34 [bug#52283] [PATCH 00/10] Tuning packages for CPU micro-architectures Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 01/10] Add (guix cpu) Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 02/10] transformations: Add '--tune' Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-06 23:18 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann via Guix-patches via
2021-12-07 8:04 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-07 10:32 ` zimoun
2021-12-07 14:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-07 15:52 ` zimoun
2021-12-09 9:19 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-09 10:35 ` zimoun
2021-12-10 8:49 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 03/10] ci: Add extra jobs for tunable packages Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 04/10] gnu: Add eigen-benchmarks Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 05/10] gnu: Add xsimd-benchmark Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 06/10] gnu: Add xtensor-benchmark Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 07/10] gnu: ceres-solver: Mark as tunable Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 08/10] gnu: Add ceres-solver-benchmarks Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 09/10] gnu: libfive: Mark as tunable Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 20:49 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 10/10] gnu: prusa-slicer: " Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-05 8:37 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH 00/10] Tuning packages for CPU micro-architectures Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-06 10:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-06 12:47 ` zimoun [this message]
2021-12-07 8:39 ` Mathieu Othacehe
2021-12-07 9:02 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-06 16:48 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-04 21:11 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-07 9:13 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 00/12] " Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 01/12] Add (guix cpu) Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 02/12] gnu: gcc: Add 'compiler-cpu-architectures' property Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 03/12] gnu: clang: " Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 04/12] transformations: Add '--tune' Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 05/12] ci: Add extra jobs for tunable packages Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 06/12] gnu: Add eigen-benchmarks Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 07/12] gnu: Add xsimd-benchmark Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 08/12] gnu: Add xtensor-benchmark Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 09/12] gnu: ceres-solver: Mark as tunable Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 10/12] gnu: Add ceres-solver-benchmarks Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 11/12] gnu: libfive: Mark as tunable Ludovic Courtès
2021-12-16 17:58 ` [bug#52283] [PATCH v2 12/12] gnu: prusa-slicer: " Ludovic Courtès
2022-01-01 14:59 ` bug#52283: [PATCH 00/10] Tuning packages for CPU micro-architectures Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86zgpdoq7n.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=52283@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=ludovic.courtes@inria.fr \
--cc=othacehe@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.