From: Evandro Menezes <ebahapo@icloud.com>
To: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Cc: Evandro Menezes via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Kyrylo Tkachov <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>,
Tamar Christina <Tamar.Christina@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aarch64: Add SVE instruction types
Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 14:59:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C2F401B2-FAF4-4EAB-BB29-AB2317E96E0A@icloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mpt8rdq7yvh.fsf@arm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1977 bytes --]
Hi, Richard.
My criteria were very much (a). In some cases though, a particular instruction could have variations that others in its natural group didn’t, when if seemed sensible to create a specific description for this instruction, even if its base form shares resources with other instructions in its group.
Do you have specific instances in mind?
Thank you,
--
Evandro Menezes
> Em 15 de mai. de 2023, à(s) 04:00, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> escreveu:
>
> Evandro Menezes via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> This patch adds the attribute `type` to most SVE1 instructions, as in the other
>> instructions.
>
> Thanks for doing this.
>
> Could you say what criteria you used for picking the granularity? Other
> maintainers might disagree, but personally I'd prefer to distinguish two
> instructions only if:
>
> (a) a scheduling description really needs to distinguish them or
> (b) grouping them together would be very artificial (because they're
> logically unrelated)
>
> It's always possible to split types later if new scheduling descriptions
> require it. Because of that, I don't think we should try to predict ahead
> of time what future scheduling descriptions will need.
>
> Of course, this depends on having results that show that scheduling
> makes a significant difference on an SVE core. I think one of the
> problems here is that, when a different scheduling model changes the
> performance of a particular test, it's difficult to tell whether
> the gain/loss is caused by the model being more/less accurate than
> the previous one, or if it's due to important "secondary" effects
> on register live ranges. Instinctively, I'd have expected these
> secondary effects to dominate on OoO cores.
>
> Richard
--
Evandro Menezes ◊ evandro@yahoo.com ◊ Austin, TX
Άγιος ο Θεός ⁂ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ ⁂ Sanctus Deus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-15 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-12 23:08 Evandro Menezes
2023-05-15 9:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-05-15 9:49 ` Kyrylo Tkachov
2023-05-15 20:13 ` Evandro Menezes
2023-05-16 8:36 ` Kyrylo Tkachov
2023-05-16 20:12 ` Evandro Menezes
2023-09-13 0:54 ` Evandro Menezes
2023-05-15 19:59 ` Evandro Menezes [this message]
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=C2F401B2-FAF4-4EAB-BB29-AB2317E96E0A@icloud.com \
--to=ebahapo@icloud.com \
--cc=Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com \
--cc=Tamar.Christina@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.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).