[PATCH] D128631: [AArch64] Initial sched model for Neoverse N2

[Cullen Rhodes via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

c-rhodes marked an inline comment as done.
c-rhodes added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/test/tools/llvm-mca/AArch64/Neoverse/N2-basic-instructions.s:1858
+# CHECK-NEXT:  1      2     0.50                        umnegl	x11, w13, w17
+# CHECK-NEXT:  1      1     0.25                        extr	w3, w5, w7, #0
+# CHECK-NEXT:  1      1     0.25                        extr	w11, w13, w17, #31
----------------
c-rhodes wrote:
> dmgreen wrote:
> > c-rhodes wrote:
> > > dmgreen wrote:
> > > > Is this missing?
> > > > Is this missing?
> > > 
> > > I can't see any issue with this?
> > I meant should it be the same as `extr x`? The software optimization guide mentions "Bitfield extract, one reg" and "Bitfield extract, two regs", but doesn't make a distinction between X regs and W.
> > 
> > We don't model the difference between EXTR where both operands are the same (if that's what "one reg" means) - that should be fine as it sounds minor. But should the matching be including W EXT too:
> > ```
> > def : InstRW<[N2Write_3cyc_1I_1M], (instrs EXTRXrri, EXTRWrri)>;
> > ```
> > I meant should it be the same as `extr x`? The software optimization guide mentions "Bitfield extract, one reg" and "Bitfield extract, two regs", but doesn't make a distinction between X regs and W.
> > 
> > We don't model the difference between EXTR where both operands are the same (if that's what "one reg" means) - that should be fine as it sounds minor. But should the matching be including W EXT too:
> > ```
> > def : InstRW<[N2Write_3cyc_1I_1M], (instrs EXTRXrri, EXTRWrri)>;
> > ```
> 
> I was confused by one reg / two reg in the guide as well, I just copied the A57 which implements it like this. I don't know if that's correct, I'll check.
> > I meant should it be the same as `extr x`? The software optimization guide mentions "Bitfield extract, one reg" and "Bitfield extract, two regs", but doesn't make a distinction between X regs and W.
> > 
> > We don't model the difference between EXTR where both operands are the same (if that's what "one reg" means) - that should be fine as it sounds minor. But should the matching be including W EXT too:
> > ```
> > def : InstRW<[N2Write_3cyc_1I_1M], (instrs EXTRXrri, EXTRWrri)>;
> > ```
> 
> I was confused by one reg / two reg in the guide as well, I just copied the A57 which implements it like this. I don't know if that's correct, I'll check.

One register means both inputs are the same as you thought, should probably be fixed for the A57 as well.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D128631/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D128631