From patchwork Fri Aug 24 07:22:14 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Igor Zamyatin X-Patchwork-Id: 179772 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 966B42C00BE for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:22:43 +1000 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1346397763; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:Received:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To: Cc:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=Z/CxO4d 9ni2oIhycDGqgmehbJVc=; b=c9+kWqeroC/MtNKUGjCPOxBQFTqTGNljbp3Jdhl S35SPm5LQNfgyObOeEYDKs7z/Mdjjtwr0RNLgB7ypnARetTMTK395ygEJJrRw0dv 8iqRTX/3B/ZSDWeVSm/8AYsjUYKn0jRTEhUi5QPA4HvebxZSJ5gvofhGJqRqCwnx 4j4c= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:MIME-Version:Received:Received:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=tNx9CbyC9ov2/mnUyc9ra5KXcq8B9OgarjkCHBZexHg3mY89juhSyaOkOs6hIc aZf2A6Adg48hDvNbU6lWYn6JxeDyNZsPlGG/5SLqBZL6Luh30FKkVJI12khXRkAn mEPqx29UAQCeZIx9cyizVE3z5pE2SMjbnoxfte6lOVgd0=; Received: (qmail 22116 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2012 07:22:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 22105 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2012 07:22:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f47.google.com) (209.85.210.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:22:15 +0000 Received: by daks35 with SMTP id s35so793493dak.20 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:22:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.89.37 with SMTP id bl5mr5167163pab.55.1345792934675; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.238.130 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:22:14 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: [PATCH, x86-Atom] Enabling look-ahead scheduling feature for Atom processors From: Igor Zamyatin To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Uros Bizjak Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi! Following change enables look ahead feature in the code scheduler for Atom processors. This gives quite reasonable gain for some benchmarks for mobile market. Overall compile time increase for SPEC2000 is about 1%. Regtested for x86_64 and also bootstrapped with "--with-arch=core2 --with-cpu=atom" Ok for trunk? Thanks, Igor Changelog: 2012-08-23 Yuri Rumyantsev * config/i386/i386.c (ia32_multipass_dfa_lookahead) : Add case for Atom processor. diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c index 976bbb4..331e29a 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c @@ -24103,6 +24103,7 @@ ia32_multipass_dfa_lookahead (void) case PROCESSOR_CORE2_64: case PROCESSOR_COREI7_32: case PROCESSOR_COREI7_64: + case PROCESSOR_ATOM: /* Generally, we want haifa-sched:max_issue() to look ahead as far as many instructions can be executed on a cycle, i.e., issue_rate. I wonder why tuning for many CPUs does not do this. */