When switched to the MI scheduler for P9, the hardware is modeled as out of order.
However, inside the MI Scheduler algorithm, we still use the in-order scheduling model
as the MicroOpBufferSize isn't set. The MI scheduler take it as the hw cannot buffer
the op. So, only when all the available instructions issued, the pending instruction
could be scheduled. That is not true for our P9 hw in fact.
This patch is trying to enable the Out-of-Order scheduling model. The buffer size 44 is
picked from the P9 hw spec, and the perf test indicate that, its value won't hurt the cpu2017.
With this patch, there are 3 specs improved over 3% and 1 spec deg over 3%. The detail is as follows:
x264_r: +6.95%
cactuBSSN_r: +6.94%
lbm_r: +4.11%
xz_r: -3.85%
And the GEOMEAN for all the C/C++ spec in spec2017 is about 0.18% improved.
Reviewer: Nemanjai
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55810
llvm-svn: 350285
This patch aims to improve the codegen for vector loads involving the
scalar_to_vector (load X) sequence. Initially, ld->mv instructions were used
for scalar_to_vector (load X), so this patch allows scalar_to_vector (load X)
to utilize:
LXSD and LXSDX for i64 and f64
LXSIWAX for i32 (sign extension to i64)
LXSIWZX for i32 and f64
Committing on behalf of Amy Kwan.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48950
llvm-svn: 339260
The VSX versions have the advantage of a full 64-register target whereas the FP
ones have the advantage of lower latency and higher throughput. So what we’re
after is using the faster instructions in low register pressure situations and
using the larger register file in high register pressure situations.
The heuristic chooses between the following 7 pairs of instructions.
PPC::LXSSPX vs PPC::LFSX
PPC::LXSDX vs PPC::LFDX
PPC::STXSSPX vs PPC::STFSX
PPC::STXSDX vs PPC::STFDX
PPC::LXSIWAX vs PPC::LFIWAX
PPC::LXSIWZX vs PPC::LFIWZX
PPC::STXSIWX vs PPC::STFIWX
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38486
llvm-svn: 318651
QingShan Zhang