From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 112238 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2018 14:34:43 -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 112225 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jul 2018 14:34:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-25.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=breakdown, Qualcomm, qualcomm, workloads X-HELO: foss.arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (HELO foss.arm.com) (217.140.101.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:34:41 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E3380D; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 07:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.207.77] (e100706-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.207.77]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01F223F2EA; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 07:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5B59DBFD.9070603@foss.arm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:34:00 -0000 From: Kyrill Tkachov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Machado , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" CC: James Greenhalgh , Richard Earnshaw Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AArch64, Falkor] Switch to using Falkor-specific vector costs References: <1532542234-24351-1-git-send-email-luis.machado@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <1532542234-24351-1-git-send-email-luis.machado@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-07/txt/msg01654.txt.bz2 Hi Luis, On 25/07/18 19:10, Luis Machado wrote: > The adjusted vector costs give Falkor a reasonable boost in performance for FP > benchmarks (both CPU2017 and CPU2006) and doesn't change INT benchmarks that > much. About 0.7% for CPU2017 FP and 1.54% for CPU2006 FP. > > OK for trunk? > The patch looks ok and safe to me (though you'll need approval from the maintainers). I'd be interested to see what workloads in CPU2017 were affected by this. Any chance you could post the breakdown in numbers from CPU2017? Thanks, Kyrill > gcc/ChangeLog: > > 2018-07-25 Luis Machado > > * config/aarch64/aarch64.c (qdf24xx_vector_cost): New. > (qdf24xx_tunings) : Set to qdf24xx_vector_cost. > --- > gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > index fa01475..d443aee 100644 > --- a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > +++ b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.c > @@ -430,6 +430,26 @@ static const struct cpu_vector_cost generic_vector_cost = > 1 /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost */ > }; > > +/* Qualcomm QDF24xx costs for vector insn classes. */ > +static const struct cpu_vector_cost qdf24xx_vector_cost = > +{ > + 1, /* scalar_int_stmt_cost */ > + 1, /* scalar_fp_stmt_cost */ > + 1, /* scalar_load_cost */ > + 1, /* scalar_store_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_int_stmt_cost */ > + 3, /* vec_fp_stmt_cost */ > + 2, /* vec_permute_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_to_scalar_cost */ > + 1, /* scalar_to_vec_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_align_load_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_unalign_load_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_unalign_store_cost */ > + 1, /* vec_store_cost */ > + 3, /* cond_taken_branch_cost */ > + 1 /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost */ > +}; > + > /* ThunderX costs for vector insn classes. */ > static const struct cpu_vector_cost thunderx_vector_cost = > { > @@ -890,7 +910,7 @@ static const struct tune_params qdf24xx_tunings = > &qdf24xx_extra_costs, > &qdf24xx_addrcost_table, > &qdf24xx_regmove_cost, > - &generic_vector_cost, > + &qdf24xx_vector_cost, > &generic_branch_cost, > &generic_approx_modes, > 4, /* memmov_cost */ > -- > 2.7.4 >