From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 270FD3858CD1; Fri, 8 Dec 2023 12:03:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 270FD3858CD1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1702037026; bh=Y9yOttcO5g18UO11qWmSGuCEm4ALADUsm3BaovVuqcE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=U3bCeaDA1q7Q/mz6aPjygJ1/NbPE+zUxF9B7on8i6T7AENpzC4o7oEMOnemAVkXHZ o8+lNgjfiIBJcfGling8FADny6qE//2yKZZVTzLp7JpCQMbGohDMzzusnjpyLAkHAx e/miTsu/Jixy8ycwGtvotG6Jqq/+LWghThcVWCgk= From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/112919] LoongArch: Alignments in tune parameters are not precise and they regress performance Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 12:03:45 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: see_also cc cf_gcctarget Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112919 Xi Ruoyao changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://github.com/loongson | |-community/discussions/issu | |es/23 CC| |chenglulu at loongson dot = cn, | |xen0n at gentoo dot org Target| |loongarch64-*-* --- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao --- Jia Jie reported a huge performance regression running Coremarks from GCC 1= 3 to 14, and I can confirm it on LA664. It seems a part of the regression is caused by over-aligning the labels. O= n a LA664 with different configurations I get Coremarks Iterations/Sec values (= the larger the better): 21120 with GCC 13.2.0 18320 with GCC 14.0.0 (with the default: -falign-labels=3D16 -falign-functions=3D32) 19972 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D32 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D32 (the best I've got) 19938 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D32 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D16 19964 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D32 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D64 19276 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D32 -falign-labels=3D8 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D32 19674 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D32 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D8 -falign-functions=3D32 19752 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D16 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D32 19922 with GCC 14.0.0 + -falign-loops=3D64 -falign-labels=3D4 -falign-jumps= =3D4 -falign-functions=3D32 Lulu: can you help to run some other benchmarks like SPEC (I don't have an access to it) and update these values for LA464 and LA664?=