From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 297F63858C35; Fri,  1 Mar 2024 08:14:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 297F63858C35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709280895;
	bh=1/Lpe5uEfo/bgbmMjqjoyB3QzxQ9BKNNnfAqc1hUidQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WwwDbdzQ4lIY6EoW6fxdHKJYfJ3sfQmJmZOW3glNo2Jur0TjoJjfaE8jhatcIyfMx
	 GQiUNTYxkxa9ldJYhsk+nmk54XXfIYRRQhSc9/FQCXF1dMMDpnZriIhkCXSweEdpMe
	 0KUuQs7J9eZDKdgci7f7JuOo09xcBM+9ZeNzdEIg=
From: "chenglulu at loongson dot cn" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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, 01 Mar 2024 08:14:53 +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: chenglulu at loongson dot cn
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-112919-4-lApeGkd9qH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112919-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112919-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112919

--- Comment #10 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9)
> (In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > > Any update? :)
> >=20
> > Well, I haven't run it yet. Since this does not have a big impact on the
> > spec score, I am currently testing it on a single-channel machine, so t=
he
> > test time will be longer.
> > I will reply here as soon as the results are available.
>=20
> Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than
> not aligning at all?  Coremarks results suggest the current default is ev=
en
> worse than not aligning, but arguably Coremarks is far different from real
> workloads. However if the current default is not better than not aligning
> (or the difference is only marginal and is likely covered up by some rand=
om
> fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664.
>=20
> (Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some
> work cancelling each other out :(. )
On March 8th I should be able to get the test results on the 3A6000 machine=
, I
need to judge the fluctuation of the spec and then let's see if the default
alignment is set?
In addition, I also tested it on the 3A5000 again, and the results will be
available around March 15th.
The conclusion of coremark from our team leader Xu Chenghua is that
'-falign-labels' have a regular effect on the performance of coremark, and =
when
the value of '-falign-labels' is greater than 4 bytes, the performance
decreases significantly.=