On 2024/8/14 12:18, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/14/24 13:30, LIU Zhiwei wrote:
On 2024/8/14 11:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/14/24 12:27, LIU Zhiwei wrote:
On 2024/8/14 10:04, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/14/24 10:58, LIU Zhiwei wrote:
Thus if we want to use all registers of vectors, we have to add a
dynamic constraint on register allocation based on IR types.
My comment vs patch 4 is that you can't do that, at least not
without large changes to TCG.
In addition, I said that the register pressure on vector regs is
not high enough to justify such changes. There is, so far, little
benefit in having more than 4 or 5 vector registers, much less 32.
Thus 7 (lmul 4, omitting v0) is sufficient.
At least on QEMU, SVE can support 2048 bit vector length with
'sve-default-vector- length=256'. Software optimized with SVE,
such as X264 can benefit with long SVE length in less dynamic A64
instructions.
We want to expose all host vector ability. Thus the largest
TCG_TYPE_V256 is not enough, as 128-bit RVV can give 8*128=1024
width operation. We have expand TCG_TYPE_V512/1024/2048 types(not
in this patch set, but intend to upstream later).
With large TCG_TYPE_V1024/2048, we get better performance on RISC-V
board with much less translated RISC-V vector instructions. We can
give a more detailed experiment result if needed.
However, we will only have 3 vector register when support
TCG_TYPE_V1024. And even less for TCG_TYPE_V2048. Current
approach will give more vectors TCG_TYPE_V128 even with support
TCG_TYPE_V1024, which will relax some guest NEON register pressure.
Then you will have to teach TCG about one operand consuming and
clobbering N hard registers, so that you get the spills and fills
done correctly.
I think we have done this in patch 6.
No, you have not.
There are no modifications to tcg_reg_alloc, and there are no
additional calls to tcg_reg_free, which is where spills are generated.
There would also need to be changes on the fill side, temp_load.
Thanks. I choose the simple design as you suggest for this patch set.
And We will fix this problem when send the longer vector operations
implementation.
I think you should make longer vector operations a longer term project,
Does longer vector operations implementation deserves to upstream? We
can contribute it sooner as it is ready.
Sure.
Good news!
Thanks,
Zhiwei
r~
