[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMcKgyOz331qvO/R@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:51:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] pgo: add clang's Profile Guided Optimization
infrastructure
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 01:56:41PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> For example, Fangrui gave you numbers, and you rejected them out of
> hand. I've explained to you why instrumentation is better than
> sampling (at least for clang). Fangrui gave you numbers. Let's move on
> to something else.
I did not dismiss them; I asked for clarification. I would like to
understand what exactly is missed by sampling based PGO data that makes
such a difference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists