From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D7563858D38 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4D7563858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.vnet.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 35E6lJvR011770; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:18 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=BCyw9zuLJqMHs8qVPYtsjAERYVNKJgQpivYDr8FA1bM=; b=PxX5WSga+oWVBpUbxYd75rqIwhmA8nK14/6KfIVPB9ntDHU2Ywr1X08qqui8cNE/UF7W YIi9ULqYyOC6mUum5lFpRMvqQqKzdafwxl6M8U9jTeg8RIPUS0IKMF03kpWgNNHFjYf5 i2vnd3nlu2ixD7lpwhzojlHrrdH9PmQZ/LBEPk/4f1A5HjmwL7xaFKzMLpfMw9EKdk8O u2vSn4ej2mbJKMHcmR93E9qk7Ybn8DeIHxDEtJOzlX4YBJKujGGgUX6WxUXUuv7Gaev0 c5nRRW5H6G0Svs2FmOZD7nhmL8VeUJQpJMsec99MkxVsE2sqixA6YCHII1LzNxhN6ObU pQ== Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3r78k4081q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:17 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 35E6Qmii012072; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:16 GMT Received: from smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.116]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3r4gt67tup-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:16 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.102]) by smtprelay07.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 35E6xEf059179466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:14 GMT Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA7F58060; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD34858056; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.43.28.94] (unknown [9.43.28.94]) by smtpav03.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 06:59:12 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <350d2285-9ec1-dbbb-2e4a-7f0e008f8b7f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:29:11 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rs6000: fmr gets used instead of faster xxlor [PR93571] To: Ajit Agarwal , gcc-patches Cc: Segher Boessenkool , bergner@linux.ibm.com References: <174972e2-3792-935b-ed4e-4e9d3d4ec26a@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Surya Kumari Jangala In-Reply-To: <174972e2-3792-935b-ed4e-4e9d3d4ec26a@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 42DmnrhyOSAPnhS1-yGacHdA64yWF3sM X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 42DmnrhyOSAPnhS1-yGacHdA64yWF3sM X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.957,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-06-14_03,2023-06-12_02,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=596 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2305260000 definitions=main-2306140056 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 25/02/23 3:20 pm, Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches wrote: > Hello All: > > Here is the patch that uses xxlor instead of fmr where possible. > Performance results shows that fmr is better in power9 and > power10 architectures whereas xxlor is better in power7 and > power 8 architectures. fmr is the only option before p7. > > Bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu > > Thanks & Regards > Ajit > > rs6000: Use xxlor instead of fmr where possible > > Replaces fmr with xxlor instruction for power7 and power8 > architectures whereas for power9 and power10 keep fmr > instruction. > > Perf measurement results: > > Power9 fmr: 201,847,661 cycles. > Power9 xxlor: 201,877,78 cycles. > Power8 fmr: 200,901,043 cycles. > Power8 xxlor: 201,020,518 cycles. 'fmr' is better than 'xxlor' for power8 according to the above numbers. Should we then replace fmr with xxlor? -Surya