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
>>...