From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5453 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2006 18:43:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 5436 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jul 2006 18:43:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:43:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6DIhLKu029510; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:21 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6DIhKaI016864; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:20 -0400 Received: from [172.16.14.227] (IDENT:m7Yvovd+GFAaw18HNCIVXhnMWHY/w6ea@topaz.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.227]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6DIhKve002006; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:43:20 -0400 Message-ID: <44B69448.3020308@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:43:00 -0000 From: Dave Brolley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: cgen@sources.redhat.com, sid@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch][rfa] Don't Generate Code to Support Unused Write Stacks References: <44B564FE.1030002@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >brolley wrote: > > > >>[...] >>When generating write stacks and the supporting code in order to >>suppor the (delay ...) rtl construct for SID, cgen currently generates >>a write stack for all registers and memory modes regardless of whether >>they are used or not. [...] >>For the internal port for which performance was an issue, this yielded >>an improvement of 17%. [...] >> >> > >Sounds good. I'm surprised though that your change should cause such >a noticeable improvement. It may be that the sid-side code to handle >the write queue testing/iteration is rather deficient. (Try adding >some UNLIKELY markers to the CPU::writeback() function's while() >conditions.) > > I think that the difference was 39 vs 2 write stacks to manage for this port. Dave