On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 8:42 AM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: > > Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> writes: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> > >> Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 2:24 PM > >> To: Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> > >> Cc: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd > >> <n...@arm.com>; Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>; Marcus > >> Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com>; Kyrylo Tkachov > >> <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH]AArch64: update vget_set_lane_1.c test output > >> > >> Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:26 AM Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi All, > >> >> > >> >> In the vget_set_lane_1.c test the following entries now generate a zip1 > >> >> instead > >> of an INS > >> >> > >> >> BUILD_TEST (float32x2_t, float32x2_t, , , f32, 1, 0) > >> >> BUILD_TEST (int32x2_t, int32x2_t, , , s32, 1, 0) > >> >> BUILD_TEST (uint32x2_t, uint32x2_t, , , u32, 1, 0) > >> >> > >> >> This is because the non-Q variant for indices 0 and 1 are just > >> >> shuffling values. > >> >> There is no perf difference between INS SIMD to SIMD and ZIP, as such > >> >> just > >> update the > >> >> test file. > >> > Hmm, is this true on all cores? I suspect there is a core out there > >> > where INS is implemented with a much lower latency than ZIP. > >> > If we look at config/aarch64/thunderx.md, we can see INS is 2 cycles > >> > while ZIP is 6 cycles (3/7 for q versions). > >> > Now I don't have any invested interest in that core any more but I > >> > just wanted to point out that is not exactly true for all cores. > >> > >> Thanks for the pointer. In that case, perhaps we should prefer > >> aarch64_evpc_ins over aarch64_evpc_zip in aarch64_expand_vec_perm_const_1? > >> That's enough to fix this failure, but it'll probably require other > >> tests to be adjusted... > > > > I think given that Thundex-X is a 10 year old micro-architecture that is > > several cases where > > often used instructions have very high latencies that generic codegen > > should not be blocked > > from progressing because of it. > > > > we use zips in many things and if thunderx codegen is really of that much > > importance then I > > think the old codegen should be gated behind -mcpu=thunderx rather than > > preventing generic > > changes. > > But you said there was no perf difference between INS and ZIP, so it > sounds like for all known cases, using INS rather than ZIP is either > neutral or better. > > There's also the possible secondary benefit that the INS patterns use > standard RTL operations whereas the ZIP patterns use unspecs. > > Keeping ZIP seems OK there's a specific reason to prefer it over INS for > more modern cores though.
This is why I wrote in the bug report: But maybe this needs some better cost mechanism because right now even though we might be able to do ins because of reencoding zip might be detected first. Maybe for GCC 15, we could rewrite the ZIP patterns not to use unspec for V2SI and V2DI since in those cases it is VEC_CONCAT (I think). Anyways I suspect ThunderX (88x and OcteonTX1) are no longer that important but I don't speak for Marvell any more. And the cores I care about ZIP and INS have a similar characteristics that using either of them is ok. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > Thanks, > Richard >
