From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17169 invoked by alias); 12 Apr 2012 10:20:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 17161 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Apr 2012 10:20:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f49.google.com) (209.85.210.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:20:25 +0000 Received: by dadq36 with SMTP id q36so2267929dad.22 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.222.67 with SMTP id qk3mr2070709pbc.51.1334226025371; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.69.106 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:20:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement From: Igor Zamyatin To: Richard Guenther Cc: Andi Kleen , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00735.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Igor Zamyatin writes: >> >>> Hi All! >>> >>> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >>> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. >>> >>> This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite >>> from EEMBC. >>> >>> Tested for i386 and x86-64, ok for trunk? >> >> Did you measure how much this slows down the compiler when compiling >> for Atom? The new pass looks rather slow. > > Also please explain why adjusting the automaton for Atom is not a way to > attack this issue. If I understand the question correctly - it's a dynamic check and it's not clear how to describe this adjusting statically in machine description > > Richard. > >> -Andi >> >> -- >> ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only