Liu Xin
2013-Sep-19 02:41 UTC
[LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
Hi, LLVM, I found LLVM codegen has 3 passes for instruction scheduling: 1) pre-ra sched 2) post-ra sched 3) mi sched. for RISC machines, there are data hazard cases appear only after Register Allocation(RA). for example, $t0 is used immediately after writing(RAW): ld $t0, MEM add $t2, $t0, $0 There may be one or more stall in pipeline. Instruction scheduler can detect this kinds of conflict and insert other instructions to avoid pipeline bubble. I think this work only can be done after RA. If so, what's the purpose for 1). I found 1) is mandatory and 2/3) are optional. Further, at least one target enable pre-RA-sched with harzardRecognizer. Does it really work out? you can resolve data hazard using pre-RA-sched only? thanks, --lx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130919/f107f3cc/attachment.html>
Akira Hatanaka
2013-Sep-19 21:39 UTC
[LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
Mips invokes the post-RA scheduler only when OptLevel > Aggressive, so you will have to compile with -O3. You can also invoke the MI (pre-RA) scheduler with llc option "-enable-misched". As you have pointed out, the post-isel scheduler is mandatory, and therefore you don't have to give any command line options. Currently, mips has only one generic scheduling itinerary model in MipsSchedule.td that is not tailored to any specific core, so you might have to tweak it to have the scheduler generate efficient code for your target. On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi, LLVM, > > I found LLVM codegen has 3 passes for instruction scheduling: > > 1) pre-ra sched > 2) post-ra sched > 3) mi sched. > > for RISC machines, there are data hazard cases appear only after Register > Allocation(RA). for example, $t0 is used immediately after writing(RAW): > > ld $t0, MEM > add $t2, $t0, $0 > > There may be one or more stall in pipeline. Instruction scheduler can > detect this kinds of conflict and insert other instructions to avoid > pipeline bubble. I think this work only can be done after RA. If so, > what's the purpose for 1). I found 1) is mandatory and 2/3) are optional. > Further, at least one target enable pre-RA-sched with harzardRecognizer. > Does it really work out? you can resolve data hazard using pre-RA-sched > only? > > thanks, > --lx > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130919/ed16ac1e/attachment.html>
Liu Xin
2013-Sep-20 02:50 UTC
[LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
Akira, Thanks you for response. I understand Post-RA schedule make uses of scoreboardHazardRecognizer. But I found mips codes are good enough by default. basically, I can not easily eyeball any bubbles. I don't understand how they can do that without post-RA-sched. pre-ra-scheduler eg. (SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp) has little information and they can only schedule node in topology order. It assumes any SU is one cycle delay. I don't think pre-ra-sched consider any pipeline details. thanks, --lx On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote:> Mips invokes the post-RA scheduler only when OptLevel > Aggressive, so you > will have to compile with -O3. > > You can also invoke the MI (pre-RA) scheduler with llc option > "-enable-misched". As you have pointed out, the post-isel scheduler is > mandatory, and therefore you don't have to give any command line options. > > Currently, mips has only one generic scheduling itinerary model in > MipsSchedule.td that is not tailored to any specific core, so you might > have to tweak it to have the scheduler generate efficient code for your > target. > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Liu Xin <navy.xliu at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, LLVM, >> >> I found LLVM codegen has 3 passes for instruction scheduling: >> >> 1) pre-ra sched >> 2) post-ra sched >> 3) mi sched. >> >> for RISC machines, there are data hazard cases appear only after Register >> Allocation(RA). for example, $t0 is used immediately after writing(RAW): >> >> ld $t0, MEM >> add $t2, $t0, $0 >> >> There may be one or more stall in pipeline. Instruction scheduler can >> detect this kinds of conflict and insert other instructions to avoid >> pipeline bubble. I think this work only can be done after RA. If so, >> what's the purpose for 1). I found 1) is mandatory and 2/3) are optional. >> Further, at least one target enable pre-RA-sched with harzardRecognizer. >> Does it really work out? you can resolve data hazard using pre-RA-sched >> only? >> >> thanks, >> --lx >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130920/c7e865e4/attachment.html>
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
- [LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
- [LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
- [LLVMdev] Does Mips resolve hazard in pre-ra-sched or post-ra-sched?
- [LLVMdev] DFAPacketizer