public inbox for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: "Vladimir N. Makarov" <vmakarov@redhat.com>
Cc: Ghassan Shobaki <gshobaki@ece.ucdavis.edu>,
	gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Superblock Instruction Scheduling in GCC
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:06:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031204000558.GD23084@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3FCDEE2C.19E04DE3@redhat.com>

> Ghassan Shobaki wrote:
> 
> > I know how to get gcc to form superblocks (by using the -ftracer
> > command-line switch), but is there a way to get it to use these
> > superblocks as scheduling regions in the instruction scheduling pass?
> > Currently, the instruction scheduling module forms regions that are totally
> > different from the superblocks that are formed in the tracer module
> > even though each superblock is a valid scheduling region.
> > Any idea how I can achieve this? Or are there any plans to do superblock
> > instruction scheduling in the near future?
> 
> There was Jan Hubicka's patch for this.  Please look at it
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg00499.html
> 
> This patch should work for all platforms except for IA64 whose the second
> scheduling is made on EBB.

This patch is currently in the mainline tree, so you can simply use
-fsched2-use-traces / -fsched2-use-superblocks
> 
> I tried trace scheduling for IA64 (but I did not post the patch for ia64).
> Here the results are
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg00499.html
> 
> The problem with trace scheduling is that the generated code is bigger, the
> compiler is slower and the code improvement is insignificant.
> 
>   If you manage to achieve an improvement for a platform on a credible
> benchmark (SPEC95, SPEC2000), we could consider to add the patch to gcc at
> least for given platform for -O3.   Because the compiler changed since the
> patch was posted, there is a probability that you could achieve this.

Yes, we need experimenting here.
I was quite surprised that the benefits wasn't too noticeable on
in-order architecture and I would like to hear about any results
(positive or negative).
-fsched2-use-superblocks should bring most of benefits at no code size
costs, while -fsched2-use-traces is more experimental and probably needs
profile feedback to do somethign usefull.  (I managed to get some
speedups using this on Athlon but the benefits wasn't considerable
enought to discuss inclusion in -O3 -fbranch-probabilities combination)

Honza
> 
> 
> Vlad
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2003-12-04  0:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-03  6:14 Ghassan Shobaki
2003-12-03 14:03 ` Vladimir N. Makarov
2003-12-04  0:06   ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2003-12-04  1:26     ` Ghassan Shobaki
2003-12-04 10:25       ` Jan Hubicka
2003-12-04 15:54         ` Vladimir Makarov
2003-12-09 21:11     ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-01-28  1:31     ` Superblock Instruction Scheduling in GCC 3.4 Ghassan Shobaki
2004-01-28 12:23       ` Jan Hubicka
2004-01-29  7:07         ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-01-29 10:13           ` Jan Hubicka
2004-02-01 18:17             ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-02-01 21:55               ` Jan Hubicka
2004-02-02  5:52                 ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-02-10 18:57                 ` Superblock Scheduling Alg in GCC Ghassan Shobaki
2004-02-10 20:08                   ` Vladimir Makarov
2004-02-10 20:17                     ` Vladimir Makarov
2004-02-10 20:27                       ` Jan Hubicka
2004-04-14 17:03                         ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-04-14 22:44                           ` Vladimir Makarov
     [not found]                             ` <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404142056120.4634@hawking.ece.ucdavis.edu>
2004-04-17 19:29                               ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-05-27  6:41                         ` Ghassan Shobaki
2004-05-27 10:06                           ` Tree-SSA: Grammer Sumit Jain
2004-05-27 12:56                             ` llewelly
2005-02-11 16:55                           ` Trace Scheduling in GCC Ghassan Shobaki
     [not found]                             ` <4210D6C0.3030005@redhat.com>
2005-02-15  6:30                               ` Vladimir Makarov
2006-11-24 18:42                                 ` Phase Ordering of Scheduling and Allocation " Ghassan Shobaki
2006-11-24 19:28                                   ` Vladimir N. Makarov
2005-02-15  7:45                               ` Trace Scheduling " Jan Hubicka
2005-02-15  9:18                                 ` Ghassan Shobaki
2005-02-17 16:19                                   ` Jan Hubicka
2005-02-16 10:40                               ` Vladimir Makarov
     [not found]                                 ` <Pine.GHP.4.58.0502150840080.14429@dante.ece.ucdavis.edu>
2005-02-16 11:19                                   ` Jan Hubicka

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=20031204000558.GD23084@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
    --to=hubicka@ucw.cz \
    --cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc@gnu.org \
    --cc=gshobaki@ece.ucdavis.edu \
    --cc=vmakarov@redhat.com \
    /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).