Superblock Instruction Scheduling in GCC

Ghassan Shobaki gshobaki@ece.ucdavis.edu
Tue Dec 9 21:11:00 GMT 2003



I could not check out the integrated patch since the cvs server is
currently down. On the other hand, when I tried to add the patch (as
published on the web) manually on top of release 3.3.1 the resulting
binary failed. I am not sure if I did something wrong or just needed
to do that on top of a more recent version of the gcc code.
So, I am kind of stuck at this point. Do you have any source files that I
can add on top of release 3.3.1 or 3.3.2 to enable superblock scheduling?

Thanks

-Ghassan


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > Ghassan Shobaki wrote:
> >
> > > I know how to get gcc to form superblocks (by using the -ftracer
> > > command-line switch), but is there a way to get it to use these
> > > superblocks as scheduling regions in the instruction scheduling pass?
> > > Currently, the instruction scheduling module forms regions that are totally
> > > different from the superblocks that are formed in the tracer module
> > > even though each superblock is a valid scheduling region.
> > > Any idea how I can achieve this? Or are there any plans to do superblock
> > > instruction scheduling in the near future?
> >
> > There was Jan Hubicka's patch for this.  Please look at it
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg00499.html
> >
> > This patch should work for all platforms except for IA64 whose the second
> > scheduling is made on EBB.
>
> This patch is currently in the mainline tree, so you can simply use
> -fsched2-use-traces / -fsched2-use-superblocks
> >
> > I tried trace scheduling for IA64 (but I did not post the patch for ia64).
> > Here the results are
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg00499.html
> >
> > The problem with trace scheduling is that the generated code is bigger, the
> > compiler is slower and the code improvement is insignificant.
> >
> >   If you manage to achieve an improvement for a platform on a credible
> > benchmark (SPEC95, SPEC2000), we could consider to add the patch to gcc at
> > least for given platform for -O3.   Because the compiler changed since the
> > patch was posted, there is a probability that you could achieve this.
>
> Yes, we need experimenting here.
> I was quite surprised that the benefits wasn't too noticeable on
> in-order architecture and I would like to hear about any results
> (positive or negative).
> -fsched2-use-superblocks should bring most of benefits at no code size
> costs, while -fsched2-use-traces is more experimental and probably needs
> profile feedback to do somethign usefull.  (I managed to get some
> speedups using this on Athlon but the benefits wasn't considerable
> enought to discuss inclusion in -O3 -fbranch-probabilities combination)
>
> Honza
> >
> >
> > Vlad
> >
>



More information about the Gcc-help mailing list