similar to: SchedClasses

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Thorsten Schütt via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am looking at the scheduling model of the ThunderX2. I am trying to figure out the cost of the LDADDALX instruction. The following program’s output is: > name LDADDALX; class 872 > microops 65535 > I would have assumed that the microops are less than

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Andrew Trick via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Thorsten Schütt via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > #define GET_REGINFO_ENUM > > #include "AArch64GenRegisterInfo.inc" > > > > #define GET_INSTRINFO_ENUM >

Dear all, Some benchmarking experimentation I`ve done recently -- all on AArch64 -- has shown that it might be beneficial for all AArch64 targets to have a positive LoopMicroOpBufferSize, whereas the default that applies to all ISAs seems to be zero. Although I`ve tried going as far down the rabbit hole as I can, I haven`t found a way to set DefaultLoopMicroOpBufferSize on a per-ISA basis or

Hi all, The goal of this RFC is to make information related to variant scheduling classes accessible at MC level. This would help tools like llvm-mca understand/resolve variant scheduling classes. To achieve this goal, I plan to introduce a new class of scheduling predicates named MCSchedPredicate. An MCSchedPredicate allows the definition of boolean expressions with a well-known semantic, that

Hi, I would like to ask what IssueWidth and NumMicroOps refer to in MachineScheduler, just to be 100% sure what the intent is. Are we modeling the decoder phase or the execution stage? Background: First of all, there seems to be different meanings of "issue" depending on which platform you're on:

> On May 9, 2018, at 9:43 AM, Jonas Paulsson <paulsson at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to ask what IssueWidth and NumMicroOps refer to in MachineScheduler, just to be 100% sure what the intent is. > Are we modeling the decoder phase or the execution stage? > > Background: > > First of all, there seems to be different meanings of

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:50:20PM -0700, Andrew Trick wrote: > > > On Mar 26, 2015, at 7:36 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a program with over 100 loads (each with a 10 cycle latency) > > at the beginning of the program, and I can't figure out how to get > > the machine scheduler to intermix ALU

Hi all, The C++11 (& C11) compare_exchange functions with explicit memory order allow you to specify two sets of semantics, one for when the exchange actually happens and one for when it fails. Unfortunately, at the moment the LLVM IR "cmpxchg" instruction only has one ordering, which means we get sub-optimal codegen. This probably affects all architectures which use

On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:15 AM, James Molloy wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Could you describe how this would be done? In the current ARM itineraries > (say C-A9 for example), the superscalar issue stage is modelled as taking 1 > cycle. If it were to take 2 cycles instead, as far as I can tell the hazard > analyser would stall because both FU's would be acquired. > > I would

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > At Sony we developed an LLVM based performance analysis tool named llvm-mca. We > currently use it internally to statically measure the performance of code, and > to help triage potential problems with target scheduling models. We decided to > post this RFC because

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the feedback! On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2018, at 9:22 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > At Sony we developed an LLVM based performance analysis tool named > llvm-mca. We > currently use it internally to statically measure the

Hi all, At Sony we developed an LLVM based performance analysis tool named llvm-mca. We currently use it internally to statically measure the performance of code, and to help triage potential problems with target scheduling models. We decided to post this RFC because we are interested in the feedback from the community, and we also believe that other people might be interested in a tool like

Sure I will split it and put it in two patches. Give me few hours. I need to test those patches. Sirish On 4/19/2012 8:40 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:18:05PM -0500, Sirish Pande wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here's a patch for Hexagon Packetizer for review. This patch does >> not yield any warnings. >> > Would it be possible to split this