From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14783 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2014 22:27:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14771 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2014 22:27:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f172.google.com) (209.85.223.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:27:32 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id rl12so3569iec.3 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.30.134 with SMTP id s6mr21562094igh.46.1413844050431; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from f1.c.bardezibar.internal (81.37.148.146.bc.googleusercontent.com. [146.148.37.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h3sm5166145ioe.44.2014.10.20.15.27.29 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:01:00 -0000 From: Sebastian Pop To: ramrad01@arm.com Cc: Maxim Kuvyrkov , GCC Patches , Vladimir Makarov , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Marcus Shawcroft , Richard Earnshaw , Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: [PATCH] Account for prologue spills in reg_pressure scheduling Message-ID: <20141020222727.GB14144@f1.c.bardezibar.internal> References: <20141020191105.GB30024@f1.c.bardezibar.internal> <20141020204417.GA7213@f1.c.bardezibar.internal> <183D9AE9-ADFE-4E20-A8FF-B323A631FCC4@linaro.org> <87wq7u30g6.fsf@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01989.txt.bz2 Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > We already have sched-pressure --param=sched-pressure-algorithm=1 on > by default in the AArch64 backend from September. > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg01663.html went in a few > days back. > > So if this patch is on then we are looking at uplifts with > sched-pressure-algorithm=2 patch and --param Right: I ran "-O3" vs. "-O3 -fsched-pressure --param=sched-pressure-algorithm=1" and the numbers are identical. > sched-pressure-algorithm=2. To a large degree turning on algorithm #2 > is a benchmarking exercise and IMHO should happen along with the > sched-pressure tweaks that you are currently doing. I would suggest > moving to the same algorithm as the ARM backend would be nice and if > we can deal with any performance regressions that appear. However > without seeing behaviour on some more benchmarks like SPEC2k(6) it > would be unwise to switch this on by default . We can run this and let > you know the results, though SPECFP2k6 takes quite a while - are all > your patches to sched-pressure now done ? > > >> > >> These are great results, yay! > > > > +1. Thanks for running these tests. If you have time, it'd also be > > interesting to try the same thing with --param=sched-pressure-algorithm=1 > > (which should be equivalent to not having the --param, but better safe > > than sorry). Is algorithm 1 or algorithm 2 better for aarch64? When testing Maxim's patch + --param=sched-pressure-algorithm=1 I see more perf degradations than speedups. > Sebastian's results indicate algorithm #2 + Maxim's patches are better > but we probably need some more benchmarking. Overall algorithm #2 produces better results than algorithm #1. Maxim's patch is nicely improving the perf of algorithm #2. Thanks, Sebastian