search for: procresgroups

Hello everybody, I'm reading the .td files defining the Cortex-A57 processor, which is a subtarget of AArch64 target, and there is something confusing me in the `AArch64SchedA57.td` file. In the top of `AArch64SchedA57.td`, various processor resource are defined, as follows ``` def A57UnitB : ProcResource<1>; // Type B micro-ops def A57UnitI : ProcResource<2>; // Type

From: Andrew Trick [mailto:atrick at apple.com] Sent: 24 January 2014 21:52 To: Daniel Sanders Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu) Subject: Re: New machine model questions On Jan 24, 2014, at 2:21 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com<mailto:Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote: Hi Andrew, I seem to be making good progress on the P5600 scheduler

Hi, I’m trying to work out the behavior of llvm-mca on instructions with ProcResGroups. My current understanding is: When an instruction requests a port group (e.g., HWPort015) and all of its atomic sub-resources (e.g., HWPort0,HWPort1,HWPort5), HWPort015 is marked as “reserved” and is issued in parallel with HWPort0, HWPort1, and HWPort5, blocking future instructions from reserving...

We have a two different dimensions for each instruction: slot assignments, and operand timings. These two are unrelated to each other, and also each (or both) can change for any given instruction from one architecture version to the next. The main concern for us was which of these mechanisms contains all the information that we need. We cannot express all the scheduling details by hand, and

> On May 9, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The llvm scheduling model is quite simple and doesn't allow mca to accurately simulate the execution of individual uOPs. That limitation is sort-of acceptable if you consider how the scheduling model framework was originally designed with a different goal in mind (i.e. machine

Hi Krzysztof, 2018-02-08 13:32 GMT+08:00 Andrew Trick via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > > On Feb 4, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Yatsina, Marina via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > What is the best way to model a scheduler for a VLIW in-order architecture? > I’ve looked at the Hexagon and R600 architectures and they are using

Hi Alex, On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:00 PM Alex Renda <renda at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Thanks, that’s very helpful! > > > > Also, sorry for the miscue on that bug with the 2/4 cycles — I realize now > that that’s an artifact of a change that I made to not crash when resource > groups overlap without all atomic subunits being specified: > > `echo 'fxrstor

Hi Andrew, I seem to be making good progress on the P5600 scheduler using the new machine model but I've got a few questions about it. How would you represent an instruction that splits into two micro-ops and is dispatched to two different reservation stations? For example, I have two reservation stations (AGQ and FPQ). An FPU load instruction is split into a load micro-op which is

I'm trying to create a simplified 2 slot VLIW from an OR1K. The codebase I'm working with is here <https://github.com/openrisc/llvm-or1k>. I've created an initial MyTargetSchedule.td def MyTargetModel : SchedMachineModel { // HW can decode 2 instructions per cycle. let IssueWidth = 2; let LoadLatency = 4; let MispredictPenalty = 16; // This flag is set to allow the