150 and 200 make Silvermont performance better on 173.applu (+8%) and 183.equake (+3%); Haswell spec2006 performance stays almost unchanged. Higher value of 300 leave the performance of mentioned tests unchanged, but add some regressions on other benchmarks.
So I like 200 as well as 120 and 150, but can confirm performance gains only for x86. On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> wrote: > So are there any objections to enable this > (PARAM_MAX_COMPLETELY_PEELED_INSNS increase from 100 to 120) for x86? > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Evgeny Stupachenko <evstu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I've measured spec2000, spec2006 as well and EEMBC for Silvermont in >> addition. >> 100->120 change gives gain for Silvermont, the results on Haswell are flat. >> >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote: >>>> Agreed, I think the value of 100 was set decade ago by Zdenek and me >>>> completely artifically. I do not recall any serious tuning of this flag. >>> >>> Are you talking bout PARAM_MAX_COMPLETELY_PEELED_INSNS here? If so, see: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg01193.html >>> >>> We have experienced performance regressions because of this arbitrary change >>> and bumped it back to 200 unconditionally. >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Botcazou
