search for: pr11589

Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "pr11589".

Did you mean: 11589
2011 Dec 20
3
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
...schedule each > > unrolled iteration of the loop sequentially. The reason why this seems > > to occur is that the hybrid scheduler would prefer to suffer a large > > data-dependency delay over a shorter full-pipeline delay. Do you know > > why it would do this? (you can see PR11589 for an example if you'd > > like). > > The "ilp" scheduler has several heuristics designed to compensate for lack of itinerary. Each of those heuristics has a flag, so you can see what works for your target. I've never used that scheduler with an itinerary, but it sho...
2011 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
...imum" of sorts, whereby it wants to schedule each unrolled iteration of the loop sequentially. The reason why this seems to occur is that the hybrid scheduler would prefer to suffer a large data-dependency delay over a shorter full-pipeline delay. Do you know why it would do this? (you can see PR11589 for an example if you'd like). Regarding HasReadyFilter: HasReadyFilter just causes isReady() to be used? Is there a reason that this is a compile-time constant? Both Hybrid and ILP have isReady() functions. I can certainly propose a patch to make them command-line options. Thanks again, Hal...
2011 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
...whereby it wants to schedule each > unrolled iteration of the loop sequentially. The reason why this seems > to occur is that the hybrid scheduler would prefer to suffer a large > data-dependency delay over a shorter full-pipeline delay. Do you know > why it would do this? (you can see PR11589 for an example if you'd > like). The "ilp" scheduler has several heuristics designed to compensate for lack of itinerary. Each of those heuristics has a flag, so you can see what works for your target. I've never used that scheduler with an itinerary, but it should work. It...
2011 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Here's my "thought experiment" (from PR11589): I have a bunch of > load-fadd-store chains to schedule. A store takes two cycles to clear > its last pipeline stage. The fadd takes longer to compute its result > (say 5 cycles), but can sustain a rate of 1 independent add per cycle. > As the scheduling is bottom-up, it will schedule...
2011 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 23:20 -0800, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > Here's my "thought experiment" (from PR11589): I have a bunch of > > load-fadd-store chains to schedule. A store takes two cycles to > > clear > > its last pipeline stage. The fadd takes longer to compute its result > > (say 5 cycles), but can sustain a rate of 1 independent add per > > cycle. > > As the sc...
2011 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:00 -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > Now, to generate the best PPC schedules, there is one thing you may >> want to override. The scheduler's priority function has a >> HasReadyFilter attribute (enum). It can be overriden by specializing >> hybrid_ls_rr_sort. Setting this to
2011 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:35 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 23:20 -0800, Andrew Trick wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > > > Here's my "thought experiment" (from PR11589): I have a bunch of > > > load-fadd-store chains to schedule. A store takes two cycles to > > > clear > > > its last pipeline stage. The fadd takes longer to compute its result > > > (say 5 cycles), but can sustain a rate of 1 independent add per > > > c...
2011 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 21:00 -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: Now, to generate the best PPC schedules, there is one thing you may > want to override. The scheduler's priority function has a > HasReadyFilter attribute (enum). It can be overriden by specializing > hybrid_ls_rr_sort. Setting this to "true" enables proper ILP > scheduling, and maximizes the instructions that can
2011 Dec 20
1
[LLVMdev] specializing hybrid_ls_rr_sort (was: Re: Bottom-Up Scheduling?)
..., Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:35 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 23:20 -0800, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> >>>> Here's my "thought experiment" (from PR11589): I have a bunch of >>>> load-fadd-store chains to schedule. A store takes two cycles to >>>> clear >>>> its last pipeline stage. The fadd takes longer to compute its result >>>> (say 5 cycles), but can sustain a rate of 1 independent add per >>...