public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>
Cc: Kyrill Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@foss.arm.com>,
	 GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	 Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][AARCH64] Set jump-align=4 for neoversen1
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:33:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptd0bew6kn.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0801MB2044729EF78EF2B24B2F8B5B83310@HE1PR0801MB2044.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>	(Wilco Dijkstra's message of "Fri, 17 Jan 2020 16:48:13 +0000")

Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> writes:
> Hi Kyrill & Richard,
>
>> I was leaving this to others in case it was obvious to them.  On the
>> basis that silence suggests it wasn't, :-) could you go into more details?
>> Is it expected on first principles that jump alignment doesn't matter
>> for Neoverse N1, or is this purely based on experimentation?  If it's
>
> Jump alignment is set to 4 on almost all cores because higher values have
> a major codesize cost and yet give no performance gains.
>
> I suspect any core that set it higher has done so by accident rather than
> having benchmarked the cost/benefit.
>
>> expected, are we sure that the other "32:16" entries are still worthwhile?
>> When you say it doesn't make a difference in performance, does that mean
>> that no individual test's performance changed significantly, or just that
>> the aggregate score didn't?  Did you experiment with anything inbetween
>> the current 32:16 and 4, such as 32:8 or even 32:4?
>
> I mean there is no difference above the noise floor for any test you throw at it.

OK, great.  In that case, let's go with the patch as posted.

Thanks,
Richard

> I tried other alignments including 32:16, 32:12, 32:8 but all have a significant
> cost and zero benefit.
>
> Cheers,
> Wilco

      reply	other threads:[~2020-01-20 14:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-12-24 16:25 Wilco Dijkstra
2020-01-16 17:53 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2020-01-17  9:25 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-01-17 11:12   ` Kyrill Tkachov
2020-01-17 17:53     ` Wilco Dijkstra
2020-01-20 14:33       ` Richard Sandiford [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=mptd0bew6kn.fsf@arm.com \
    --to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=kyrylo.tkachov@foss.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).