[LLVMdev] Memory Subsystem Representation

[David Greene]

For a while now we (Cray) have had some very primitive cache structure
information encoded into our version of LLVM.  Given the more complex
memory structures introduced by Bulldozer and various accelerators, it's
time to do this Right (tm).

So I'm looking for some feedback on a proposed design.

The goal of this work is to provide Passes with useful information such
as cache sizes, resource sharing arrangements, etc. so that they may do
transformations to improve memory system performance.

Here's what I'm thinking this might look like:

- Add two new structures to the TargetMachine class: TargetMemoryInfo
  and TargetExecutionEngineInfo.

- TargetMemoryInfo will initially contain cache hierarchy information.
  It will contain a list of CacheLevelInfo objects, each of which will
  specify at least the total size of the cache at that level.  It may
  also include other useful bits like associativity, inclusivity, etc.

- TargetMemoryInfo could be extended with information about various
  "special" memory regions such as local, shared, etc. memory typical on
  accelerators.  This should tie into the address space mechanism
  somehow.

- TargetExecutionEngineInfo (probably need a better name) will contain a
  list of ExecutionResourceInfo objects, such as threads, cores,
  modules, sockets, etc.  For example, for a Bulldozer-based system, we
  would have a set of cores contained in a module, a set of modules
  contained in a socket and so on.

- Each ExecutionResourceInfo object would contain a name to identify the
  grouping ("thread," "core," etc.) along with information about the
  number of execution resources it contains.  For example, a "core"
  object might specify that it contains two "threads."

- ExecutionResourceInfo objects would also contain links to
  CacheLevelInfo objects to model how the various levels of cache are
  shared.  For example, on a Bulldozer system the "core" object would
  have a link to the L1 CacheLevelInfo object, indicating that L1 is
  private to a "core."  A "module" object would have a link to the L2
  CacheLevelInfo object, indicating that it is private to a "module" but
  shared by "cores" within the "module" and so on.

I don't particularly like the names TargetExecutionEngineInfo and
ExecutionResourceInfo but couldn't come up with anything better.  Any
ideas?

Does this seem like a reasonable approach?

                              -Dave