similar to: [LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?

Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We are currently in the process of upgrading from LLVM 2.9 to LLVM 3.3. We are working on instruction scheduling (mainly for register pressure reduction). I have been following the llvmdev mailing list and have learned that a machine instruction (MI) scheduler has been

Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3. This enables the machine scheduler in addition to the SD scheduler. We have verified this by

On Jul 2, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3.

Hi, We are currently working on revising a journal article that describes our work on pre-allocation scheduling using LLVM and have some questions about LLVM's pre-allocation scheduler. The answers to these question will help us better document and analyze the results of our benchmark tests that compare our algorithm with LLVM's pre-allocation scheduling algorithm. First, here is a

On Sep 29, 2012, at 2:43 AM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We are currently working on revising a journal article that describes our work on pre-allocation scheduling using LLVM and have some questions about LLVM's pre-allocation scheduler. The answers to these question will help us better document and analyze the results of our benchmark

Hi Andy, We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. Here are our main findings: 1. The SD schedulers significantly impact the spill counts and the execution times for many

Hi All, Does LLVM currently have any power/energy reduction optimizations or any performance optimizations that take power/energy consumption into account? We are currently working on a research project on instruction scheduling for low power (experimenting with different algorithms for minimizing switching power) and would like to find out if anyone in the LLVM community is interested in adding

Preallocation Instruction Scheduling with Register Pressure Minimization Using a Combinatorial Optimization Approach G. Shobaki, M. Shawabkeh and N. Abu-Rmaileh ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization (TACO). vol. 10, issue 3, Article 14 (Sept. 2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2512432 Regards Ghassan Shobaki, PH.D Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Princess Sumaya

See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6210. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130415/e948b489/attachment.html>

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > 1. The SD schedulers significantly impact the spill counts and the execution times for many benchmarks, but the machine instruction (MI) scheduler in 3.3 has very limited impact on both spill counts and execution times. Is this because most of you work on MI did not make it into the 3.3 release?

On 17.09.2013, at 20:04, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > We have done some experimental evaluation of the different schedulers in LLVM 3.3 (source, BURR, ILP, fast, MI). The evaluation was done on x86-64 using SPEC CPU2006. We have measured both the amount of spill code as well as the execution time as detailed below. > > Here are our

So, when the MI scheduler is enabled, will SD scheduling be totally disabled or the SD scheduler will be automatically set to do source scheduling? -Ghassan ________________________________ From: Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Cc: Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Thank you for the answers, Jakob! That's really informative for someone who is still new to LLVM like me. Please see my responses below. -Ghassan  ________________________________ From: Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> To: Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 16,

Hi All, The description of ScheduleDAGMILive [1] says: ScheduleDAGMILive is an implementation of ScheduleDAGInstrs that schedules machine instructions while updating LiveIntervals and tracking regpressure. Does the live interval and register pressure part of ScheduleDAGMILive mean the subclass of ScheduleDAGMILive is a pre-RA scheduler? I assume the post-RA scheduler no need to take

Hi, Matthias. >From the class hierarchy, ScheduleDAGMILive is also a ScheduleDAGMI. I am wondering if there will be any problem if we use subclass of ScheduleDAGMILive as post-RA scheduler? The best case is ScheduleDAGMILive just waste time on book-keeping register pressure, but I am not sure if we can still do those book-keeping after RA. Talk about post-RA scheduler, I see there is another

Hi Andrew, What we have is not a patch to any of LLVM's schedulers. We have implemented our own scheduler and integrated it into LLVM 2.9 as yet-another scheduler. Our scheduler uses a combinatorial optimization approach to balance ILP and register pressure. In one experiment, we added more precise latency information for most common x86 instructions to our scheduler and noticed a 10%

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 1:43 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > That means you cannot use the code from RegisterPressure.{cpp|h} to compute this. The other liveness analysis we have in llvm codegen is LiveIntervals (LiveItnervalAnalysis) which gives you a list of liveness segments of a given vreg (the same representation is used in most linear scan allocators even

Hi Andy, Please see my in-line answers below. Regards -Ghassan ________________________________ From: Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> To: Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Pre-Allocation Schedulers in LLVM On Sep 23, 2011, at

On Sep 23, 2011, at 6:16 AM, Ghassan Shobaki wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > What we have is not a patch to any of LLVM's schedulers. We have implemented our own scheduler and integrated it into LLVM 2.9 as yet-another scheduler. Our scheduler uses a combinatorial optimization approach to balance ILP and register pressure. In one experiment, we added more precise latency information for

On 26 September 2013 08:30, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > So, when the MI scheduler is enabled, will SD scheduling be totally disabled > or the SD scheduler will be automatically set to do source scheduling? The latter. The SD scheduler is where the DAG is converted into the linear MachineInstr representation. Some kind of scheduling *has* to happen. Tim.