The vector divide and sqrt instructions have high latencies, and the scalar
comparisons are like all of the others. On the P7, permutations take an extra
cycle over purely-simple vector ops.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@205096 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
CR logicals (crand, crxor, etc.) on the P7 need to be in the first slot of each
dispatch group. The old itinerary entry was just wrong (but has not mattered
because we don't generate these instructions).
This will matter when, in an upcoming commit, we start generating these
instructions.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@198359 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Aside from a few minor latency corrections, the major change here is a new
hazard recognizer which focuses on better dispatch-group formation on the
POWER7. As with the PPC970's hazard recognizer, the most important thing it
does is avoid load-after-store hazards within the same dispatch group. It uses
the POWER7's special dispatch-group-terminating nop instruction (instead of
inserting multiple regular nop instructions). This new hazard recognizer makes
use of the scheduling dependency graph itself, built using AA information, to
robustly detect the possibility of load-after-store hazards.
significant test-suite performance changes (the error bars are 99.5% confidence
intervals based on 5 test-suite runs both with and without the change --
speedups are negative):
speedups:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/pcompress2/pcompress2
-0.55171% +/- 0.333168%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/CrossingThresholds-dbl/CrossingThresholds-dbl
-17.5576% +/- 14.598%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Reductions-dbl/Reductions-dbl
-29.5708% +/- 7.09058%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Reductions-flt/Reductions-flt
-34.9471% +/- 11.4391%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/puzzle
-25.1347% +/- 11.0104%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-8
-17.7297% +/- 9.79061%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/ary3
-35.5018% +/- 23.9458%
SingleSource/Regression/C/uint64_to_float
-56.3165% +/- 25.4234%
SingleSource/UnitTests/Vectorizer/gcc-loops
-18.5309% +/- 6.8496%
regressions:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/ASCI_Purple/SMG2000/smg2000
18.351% +/- 12.156%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/methcall
27.3086% +/- 14.4733%
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@197099 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This adds a scheduling model for the POWER7 (P7) core, and enables the
machine-instruction scheduler when targeting the P7. Scheduling for the P7,
like earlier ooo PPC cores, requires considering both dispatch group hazards,
and functional unit resources and latencies. These are both modeled in a
combined itinerary. Dispatch group formation is still handled by the post-RA
scheduler (which still needs to be updated for the P7, but nevertheless does a
pretty good job).
One interesting aspect of this change is that I've also enabled to use of AA
duing CodeGen for the P7 (just as it is for the embedded cores). The benchmark
results seem to support this decision (see below), and while this is normally
useful for in-order cores, and not for ooo cores like the P7, I think that the
dispatch slot hazards are enough like in-order resources to make the AA useful.
Test suite significant performance differences (where negative is a speedup,
and positive is a regression) vs. the current situation:
MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/drop3/drop3
with AA: N/A
without AA: -28.7614% +/- 19.8356%
(significantly against AA)
MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural
with AA: -17.7406% +/- 11.2712%
without AA: N/A
(significantly in favor of AA)
MultiSource/Benchmarks/SciMark2-C/scimark2
with AA: -11.2079% +/- 1.80543%
without AA: -11.3263% +/- 2.79651%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt
with AA: -41.8649% +/- 17.0053%
without AA: -34.5256% +/- 23.7072%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign
with AA: 25.3016% +/- 17.8614%
without AA: 38.6629% +/- 14.9391%
(significantly in favor of AA)
MultiSource/Benchmarks/sim/sim
with AA: N/A
without AA: 13.4844% +/- 7.18195%
(significantly in favor of AA)
SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/Large/fasta
with AA: 15.0664% +/- 6.70216%
without AA: 12.7747% +/- 8.43043%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/puzzle
with AA: 82.2713% +/- 26.3567%
without AA: 75.7525% +/- 41.1842%
SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-2
with AA: -37.1621% +/- 20.7964%
without AA: -35.2342% +/- 20.2999%
(significantly in favor of AA)
These are 99.5% confidence intervals from 5 runs per configuration. Regarding
the choice to turn on AA during CodeGen, of these results, four seem
significantly in favor of using AA, and one seems significantly against. I'm
not making this decision based on these numbers alone, but these results
seem consistent with results I have from other tests, and so I think that, on
balance, using AA is a win.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@195981 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
