similar to: mischeduler

Hi, I have been experimenting for a while with tryCandidate() method of the pre-RA mischeduler. I have by chance found some parameters that give quite good results on benchmarks on SystemZ (on average 1% improvement, some improvements of several percent and very little regressions). Basically, I add a "latency heuristic boost" just above processor resources checking:

Hi Andy, Thanks for the explanations. Yes AMDGPU is in-order and has MicroOpBufferSize = 1. Re "issue limited" and instruction groups: could it make sense to disable the generic scheduler's detection of issue limitation on in-order CPUs, or on CPUs that don't define instruction groups, or some similar condition? Something like: --- a/lib/CodeGen/MachineScheduler.cpp +++

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:

Hi, I am looking at the Hexagon MI Scheduling and trying to adapt it to my target. As far as I can see, Hexagon does not bundle the VLIW-bundles by calling bundleWithPred() on MIs of the completed cycle. First of all, why is this not done? SlotIndexes seems to have at least some support for this, by calling getBundleStart() for each MI that is looked up. A follow up question is then, how would

> > Of course, you want to duplicate as little of the generic scheduling logic > as you can. So I think the challenge is how to expose the > generic scheduler's functionality as a base class or composition of > utilities so that defining your strategy doesn't require too much > copy-paste. ​Isn't GCNMaxOccupancySchedStrategy [1] already an example on using

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

I am working on a project where we are integrating an existing pre-RA scheduler into LLVM and we are trying to match our peak register pressure values with the machine instruction schedulers values while using X86. I am finding some mismatches in test cases like the one attached. The registers "AH" and "AL" are live-out but not live-in and I don't see that they are defined

Hello, While tuning the MIScheduler for my target, I discovered a code that unnecessarily restricts the scheduler. I think this is a bug, but I would appreciate a second opinion. In file ScheduleDAGInstrs.cpp, the function MIsNeedChainEdge determines whether two MachineInstrs are ordered by a memory dependence. It first runs through the standard criteria (Do both instructions access memory?

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

> 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

Hi, In ConvergingScheduler::checkResourceLimits on line 1535 of MachineScheduler.cpp setLatencyPolicy is called as follows: // Set ReduceLatency to true if needed. Bot.setLatencyPolicy(TopCand.Policy); Top.setLatencyPolicy(BotCand.Policy); So the Bot scheduling boundary is used to set the latency policy of the Top candidate and the other way around. I think this should be: //

I am stuck trying to adapt my out-of-target implementation to build on SVN head (actually the v3.8 branch, rev #257626). This is currently working on the v3.7.1 sources, but the changes to 'llvm::ScheduleDAGInstrs' have me stumped as to how to revise my implementation to track the changes to this class. Our 'SHAVEAsmScheduler' derives from 'ScheduleDAGInstrs' and uses

Hi, I am seeing cases of poorly coalesced IV updates on SystemZ: In the final IR, it is obvious that %R4D<def> = LA %R2D<kill>, 4, %noreg // R4 = R2 + 4 %R2D<def> = LGR %R4D<kill> // R2 = R4 could be optimized to -> %R2D<def> = LA %R2D<kill>, 4, %noreg // R2 = R2 + 4 The reason this wasn't coalesced, is

So if I use the SchedMachineModel method, can I just skip itineraries? Phil On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Target does make a difference. VLIW needs more hand-holding. For what you > are describing it should be fairly simple. > > > > Best strategy – see what other targets do. ARM might be a good start for > generic

Hi, I'm trying to understand why MachineScheduler does a poor job in straight line code in cases like the one in the attached debug dump. This is on AMDGPU, an in-order target, and the problem is that the IMAGE_SAMPLE instructions have very high (80 cycle) latency, but in the resulting schedule they are often placed right next to their uses like this: 1784B %140:vgpr_32 =

Hi Phil. You more or less answered your own question, but let me give you some more info. Maybe it is of use. >From what I understand the SchedMachineModel is the future, although it is not as powerful as itineraries at present. The mi-scheduler is mostly developed around out-of-orders cores, I believe (I love to hear arguments on the contrary). Some of the constraints that can be found in

Hi, We have a new BE for a VLIW-like processor and I'm currently working on instruction bundles. Ideally, I'd like to have bundles *before* RA to model certain constraints, e.g. the exposed one by Tzu-Chien a while ago in his thread http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2005-September/004798.html In order to build bundles, we have added a new bottom-up MIScheduler, right after

On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > We have a new BE for a VLIW-like processor and I'm currently working on > instruction bundles. Ideally, I'd like to have bundles *before* RA to > model certain constraints, e.g. the exposed one by Tzu-Chien a while ago > in his thread >

> 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, (This only concerns MISNeedChainEdge(), and is separate from D8705) I found out that the MIScheduler (pre-ra) could not handle a simple test case (test/CodeGen/SystemZ/alias-01.ll), with 16 independent load / add / stores. The buildSchedGraph() put too many edges between memory accesses, because 1) There was no implementation of areMemAccessesTriviallyDisjoint() for SystemZ. 2) Type