Hi Richard, Apologies as I replied w/o looking for another update on the thread first.
On 10/30/24 11:35, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>>> I'm not saying that the algorithm gets the decision right for cactu >>>> when tuning for in-order CPU X and running on that same CPU X. >>>> But it seems like that combination hasn't been tried, and that, >>>> even on the combinations that the patch has been tried on, the cactu >>>> justification is based on static properties of the binary rather than >>>> a particular runtime improvement (Y% faster). >> I'd requested Wilco to possibly try this on some in-order arm cores. > OK. FWIW, I think the original testing was on Cortex-A9 or Cortex-A15, > It was also heavy on filters, such as yiq. > > But is this about making the argument in favour of an unconditional change? Not really. This is just to get some additional data while we are on the topic and also help inform any future changes in the area. > If so, I don't think it's necessary to front-load this testing. Like I said > in my reply to Jeff, that can happen naturally if all major targets move > to the new behaviour. And for a hook/param approach, we already have > enough data to justify the patch. Right we can proceed with param approach as you suggested. Thx for taking a look. I look fwd to your comments on 3/4. -Vineet
