On 04/12/24 11:03 -0800, Vineet Gupta wrote:
sched1 computes ECC (Excess Change Cost) for each insn, which represents the register pressure attributed to the insn. Currently the pressure sensitive scheduling algorithm deliberately ignores negative ECC values (pressure reduction), making them 0 (neutral), leading to more spills. This happens due to the assumption that the compiler has a reasonably accurate processor pipeline scheduling model and thus tries to aggresively fill pipeline bubbles with spill slots.This however might not be true, as the model might not be available for certains uarches or even applicable especially for modern out-of-order cores. The existing heuristic induces spill frenzy on RISC-V, noticably so on SPEC2017 507.Cactu. If insn scheduling is disabled completely, the total dynamic icounts for this workload are reduced in half from ~2.5 trillion insns to ~1.3 (w/ -fno-schedule-insns). This patch adds --param=cycle-accurate-model={0,1} to gate the spill behavior. - The default (1) preserves existing spill behavior. - targets/uarches sensitive to spilling can override the param to (0) to get the reverse effect. RISC-V backend does so too. The actual perf numbers are very promising. (1) On RISC-V BPI-F3 in-order CPU, -Ofast -march=rv64gcv_zba_zbb_zbs: Before: ------ Performance counter stats for './cactusBSSN_r_base.rivos spec_ref.par': 4,917,712.97 msec task-clock:u # 1.000 CPUs utilized 5,314 context-switches:u # 1.081 /sec 3 cpu-migrations:u # 0.001 /sec 204,784 page-faults:u # 41.642 /sec 7,868,291,222,513 cycles:u # 1.600 GHz 2,615,069,866,153 instructions:u # 0.33 insn per cycle 10,799,381,890 branches:u # 2.196 M/sec 15,714,572 branch-misses:u # 0.15% of all branches After: ----- Performance counter stats for './cactusBSSN_r_base.rivos spec_ref.par': 4,552,979.58 msec task-clock:u # 0.998 CPUs utilized 205,020 context-switches:u # 45.030 /sec 2 cpu-migrations:u # 0.000 /sec 204,221 page-faults:u # 44.854 /sec 7,285,176,204,764 cycles:u (7.4% faster) # 1.600 GHz 2,145,284,345,397 instructions:u (17.96% fewer) # 0.29 insn per cycle 10,799,382,011 branches:u # 2.372 M/sec 16,235,628 branch-misses:u # 0.15% of all branches (2) Wilco reported 20% perf gains on aarch64 Neoverse V2 runs. gcc/ChangeLog: PR target/11472
Note that you typo'd the PR number here, so that it added a comment to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11472 The server-side git hooks that check commit logs didn't notice it, because you used [PR/114729] in the subject line, which should be in the form [PR114729]. If you'd used the correct form, the hooks would have told you that the two PR numbers didn't match. I see you've been using the PR/nnn form for all your commits, please use the [PRnnn] form as described at https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
