Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-06-01 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Sorry, I didn't realize that patch was missed. I attached new version. > > Changelog: > > 2012-05-29 Yuri Rumyantsev > >* config/i386/i386.c (x86_sched_reorder): New function. >Added new function x86_sched_reorder. Reading it, you get the impression that the new function is un

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-06-01 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > Hi, Uros! > > Sorry, I didn't realize that patch was missed. I attached new version. > > Changelog: > > 2012-05-29  Yuri Rumyantsev   > >       * config/i386/i386.c (x86_sched_reorder): New function. >       Added new function x86_sched_reor

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-05-29 Thread Igor Zamyatin
Hi, Uros! Sorry, I didn't realize that patch was missed. I attached new version. Changelog: 2012-05-29 Yuri Rumyantsev * config/i386/i386.c (x86_sched_reorder): New function. Added new function x86_sched_reorder. As for multiply modes, currently we handled most frequent case f

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-05-28 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > Ping? Please at least add and URL to the patch, it took me some time to found the latest version [1], I'm not even sure if it is the latest version... I assume that you cleared all issues with middle-end and scheduler maintainers, it is not clear from the message. + (1) IMUL instrcti

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-05-28 Thread Igor Zamyatin
Ping? On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > Ping. Could x86 maintainer(s) look at these changes? > > Thanks, > Igor > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Andrey B

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-05-06 Thread Igor Zamyatin
Ping. Could x86 maintainer(s) look at these changes? Thanks, Igor On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: >>> On 13.04.2012 14:18, Igor Zamyatin wrote:

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-20 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: >> On 13.04.2012 14:18, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev >>>  wrote: On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: > >>>

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-16 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: > On 13.04.2012 14:18, Igor Zamyatin wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev >>  wrote: >>> >>> On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin  wrote

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-13 Thread Andrey Belevantsev
On 13.04.2012 14:18, Igor Zamyatin wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-13 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: >> On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin >>>  wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther  

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-13 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: > On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin >>  wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther >>>  wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Mona

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-13 Thread Andrey Belevantsev
On 12.04.2012 18:22, Richard Guenther wrote: 2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev: On 12.04.2012 17:54, Richard Guenther wrote: 2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev: On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ri

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev : > On 12.04.2012 17:54, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> 2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev: >>> >>> On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin  wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richar

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Andrey Belevantsev
On 12.04.2012 17:54, Richard Guenther wrote: 2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev: On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
2012/4/12 Andrey Belevantsev : > On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin >>  wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther >>>  wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov  wrote: > >

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Andrey Belevantsev
On 12.04.2012 16:38, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: Can atom execute two IMUL in parallel? Or what exactly is the pipeline be

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov >> wrote: >>> Can atom execute two IMUL in parallel?  Or what exactly is the pipeline behavior? >>> >>> As I underst

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: >> >>> Can atom execute two IMUL in parallel?  Or what exactly is the pipeline >>> behavior? >> >> As I understand from Intel's optimization reference manual, the behavior is >> a

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > >> Can atom execute two IMUL in parallel?  Or what exactly is the pipeline >> behavior? > > As I understand from Intel's optimization reference manual, the behavior is as > follows: if the instruction immediately following IMUL has shorte

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Alexander Monakov
> Can atom execute two IMUL in parallel? Or what exactly is the pipeline > behavior? As I understand from Intel's optimization reference manual, the behavior is as follows: if the instruction immediately following IMUL has shorter latency, execution is stalled for 4 cycles (which is IMUL's laten

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Igor Zamyatin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> Igor Zamyatin writes: >>> Hi All! It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Igor Zamyatin writes: >> >>> Hi All! >>> >>> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >>> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. >>> >>> Th

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-12 Thread Igor Zamyatin
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Igor Zamyatin writes: > >> Hi All! >> >> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. >> >> This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Igor Zamyatin writes: > >> Hi All! >> >> It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors >> and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. >> >> This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite

Re: [PATCH] Atom: Scheduler improvements for better imul placement

2012-04-11 Thread Andi Kleen
Igor Zamyatin writes: > Hi All! > > It is known that imul placement is rather critical for Atom processors > and changes try to improve imul scheduling for Atom. > > This gives +5% performance on several tests from new OA 2.0 testsuite > from EEMBC. > > Tested for i386 and x86-64, ok for trunk?