similar to: A question about AArch64 Cortex-A57 subtarget definition

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 90 matches similar to: "A question about AArch64 Cortex-A57 subtarget definition"

2014 Nov 25
4
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations on ARMv7 run time > > detectable like they have in cairo/pixman? For generic distributions > > it would nice to be able to be able to enable them as they offer > > decent performance improvements but have the code
2014 Nov 25
2
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On 25 November 2014 at 10:11, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations
2014 Nov 24
2
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
>> >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. >> >> b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. >> >> >> >> Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command >> >> line. >> > >> > >> > The easiest thing to use is probably opus_demo (opusdec
2014 Jan 28
3
[LLVMdev] New machine model questions
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
2018 Feb 08
0
[VLIW Scheduler] Itineraries vs. per operand scheduling
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
2018 Feb 08
2
[VLIW Scheduler] Itineraries vs. per operand scheduling
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
2014 Jan 24
2
[LLVMdev] New machine model questions
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
2015 Oct 15
3
what can cause a "CPU table is not sorted" assertion
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
2014 Nov 25
0
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
>> > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations on ARMv7 run time >> > detectable like they have in cairo/pixman? For generic distributions >> > it would nice to be able to be able to enable them as they offer >> > decent performance improvements but have the code fall back on devices >> > that don't support NEON. >> Yep, adding
2014 Nov 25
0
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta < viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations on ARMv7 run time >> > detectable like they have in cairo/pixman? For generic distributions >> > it would nice to
2013 Apr 11
0
No subject
optimizations done for this CPU architecture. Whether it is in-line assembly or assembly optimization of function (Eg: celt_pitch_xcorr_arm.s), or using intrinsics, it is still some optimizations. So, I don't understand your perspective. I really thought about this for the most amount of time... could you please suggest an alternative here?.. Because I'm really out of ideas in this area
2014 Nov 25
0
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org<mailto:viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org>> wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 10:11, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org<mailto:viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org>> wrote: On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan at
2014 Nov 25
0
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On 24 November 2014 at 17:48, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. >>> >> b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. >>> >> >>> >> Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command >>> >>
2014 Nov 25
1
[RFC PATCHv1] cover: celt_pitch_xcorr: Introduce ARM neon intrinsics
On 25 November 2014 at 10:18, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta > <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 25 November 2014 at 10:11, Viswanath Puttagunta > <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at
2015 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Question about load clustering in the machine scheduler
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 instructions with the loads to effectively hide the latency. It seems the issue is with load clustering. I restrict load clustering to 4 at a time, but when I look at the debug output, the loads are always being
2015 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Question about load clustering in the machine scheduler
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
2013 Jul 22
2
[LLVMdev] Questions about MachineScheduler
Hi, I'm working on defining a SchedMachineModel for the Southern Islands family of GPUs, and I have two questions related to the MachineScheduler. 1. I have a resource that can process 15 instructions at the same time. In the TableGen definitions, should I do: def HWVMEM : ProcResource<15>; or let BufferSize = 15 in { def HWVMEM : ProcResource<1>; } 2. Southern Islands has
2013 Jul 23
0
[LLVMdev] Questions about MachineScheduler
On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on defining a SchedMachineModel for the Southern Islands > family of GPUs, and I have two questions related to the > MachineScheduler. > > 1. I have a resource that can process 15 instructions at the same time. > In the TableGen definitions, should I do: > > def
2013 Oct 21
1
[LLVMdev] MI scheduler produce badly code with inline function
Hi Andy, I'm working on defining new machine model for my target, But I don't understand how to define the in-order machine (reservation tables) in new model. For example, if target has IF ID EX WB stages should I do: let BufferSize=0 in { def IF: ProcResource<1>; def ID: ProcResource<1>; def EX: ProcResource<1>; def WB: ProcResource<1>; } def :
2014 Feb 18
2
[LLVMdev] Question about per-operand machine model
Hi Andy and all, I have a question about per-operand machine model. I am finding some relations between 'MCWriteLatencyEntry' and 'MCWriteProcResEntry'. For example, class InstTEST<..., InstrItinClass itin> : Instruction { let Itinerary = Itin; } // I assume this MI writes 2 registers. def TESTINST : InstTEST<..., II_TEST> // schedule info II_TEST: