[LLVMdev] Scheduler Integration Questions

Max Shawabkeh max99x at gmail.com
Fri Apr 1 14:40:17 PDT 2011

Hello llvm-dev,

I'm doing some experimentation on instruction scheduling and would like to
use LLVM as a testbed, by integrating our existing (compiler-agnostic)
scheduler into it. I have tinkered enough with the LLVM code to know how to
create and run a new scheduler, access the DAG and target info, etc.
However, I've come upon some questions that I have been unable to answer so
far, and I'm hoping you could help me with them.

We're mainly targeting x86, and to a lesser extent SPARC. The target
definitions for these two platforms seem to indicate that neither have any
functional units or issue slots/rates defined. Likewise, when running some
scheduling tests, all nodes in the DAGs have a latency of 1. Our assumption
is that for x86 it was deemed unimportant to do proper scheduling in
software, since the architecture does a lot of scheduling in hardware, or it
was deemed too difficult to define functional units and latencies for every
subtarget in the x86 family. As for SPARC, it seems to us that LLVM support
for it is generally lacking (e.g. the 16 extra non-overlapping DFP registers
are not defined for SPARCv9). Could you please confirm these guesses? Are
there any plans to eliminate these deficiencies?

Another question I have is regarding register pressure estimates. I was
wondering how to go about tracking the number of registers available on a
target. The current schedulers (as of LLVM 2.8) use getRegPressureLimit(),
but from what I can see the limits are rather rough - e.g. x86 gives a limit
of 4 GP32 registers (presumably E[ABCD]X), even though, to the best of my
knowledge, there are more generally available for allocation (e.g. SI, DI).
It is also only taking the "top" register classes into account (e.g.
counting a usage of AL and AH as two 32-bit registers). Are we interpreting
these limits incorrectly? Can you suggest a better way to estimate them?

Thank you!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110402/c3b0312c/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list