public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 07:51:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-112919-4-wJ4xYIi54I@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-112919-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112919

--- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to chenglulu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #7)
> > Any update? :)
> 
> 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 the
> test time will be longer.
> I will reply here as soon as the results are available.

Can we determine on LA664 if the current default alignment is better than not
aligning at all?  Coremarks results suggest the current default is even 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 random
fluctuation) we can disable the aligning for LA664.

(Maybe we and the HW engineers have done some repetitive work or even some work
cancelling each other out :(. )

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-01  7:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-08 11:44 [Bug target/112919] New: " xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-08 12:03 ` [Bug target/112919] " xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-09 17:52 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-10 16:46 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-10 18:25 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-12  1:55 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-01-16  6:38 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-02-01 16:51 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-02  1:08 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-01  7:51 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-03-01  8:14 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-01  8:25 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-01  8:49 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-06  8:33 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-06  9:12 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-07 11:09 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-07 11:30 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-26  1:57 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-03-27 12:57 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-27 13:54 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-04-01 13:22 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-01 13:36 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2024-04-08  1:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-08 12:25 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-112919-4-wJ4xYIi54I@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).