Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Ana Pazos <apazos <at> codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: AArch64/ARM64 merge from EuroLLVM
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel
Date: Wednesday 23rd April 2014 20:58:25 UTC (over 3 years ago)
Hi Gerolf,

 

Sorry for the delayed response. I had to get permission to share more
details. 

 

I am allowed to share relative numbers but not absolute numbers.

 

Any missing test is due to runtime failures (e.g., gcc failure due to the
fused multiply pattern bug which Tim fixed later on).

 

Thanks,

Ana.

 


Benchmarks

ARM64 vs GCC 4.9 %

ARM64 vs AArch64 %

ARM64 vs AArch64 patched %


SPEC 2000


art

-10

-5

-1


bzip2

-3

5

5


crafty

-5

1

3


gap

-8

1

2


gzip

0

4

3


mcf

-2

-1

-1


mesa

-15

-3

-1


parser

-10

-2

4


perlbmk

5

7

5


vortex

-3

-6

-4


vpr

-15

-1

0

 

 

From: Gerolf Hoflehner [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 4:46 PM
To: Ana Pazos
Cc: Tim Northover; LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: AArch64/ARM64 merge from EuroLLVM

 

Hi Ana,

 

could you share the SPEC2000 data per suite and per benchmark?

 

Thanks

Gerolf

 

On Apr 8, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Ana Pazos  wrote:





Hi folks,

 

As Tim pointed out, we recently had the opportunity to collect 64-bit
benchmark performance data for GCC 4.9, AArch64 and ARM64 compilers on a
real hardware. It is a cortex-a53 device. Due to proprietary reasons we
cannot share the full hardware configuration.

 

The preliminary results were shared at the hackers lab at EuroLLVM
yesterday. For those who could not make it, below is the summarized
performance data.

 

A positive number means the ARM64 run is better by the number %. A negative
number means the baseline (GCC 4.9 or AArch64) is better by the number %.

 

Tuning of AArch64 backend on this processor has not been completely done
yet
(some initial work has started on modeling cortex-a53). But we quickly
investigated the bad vectorized code in some of the tests (Linpack for
example) and identified straightforward fixes that improved AArch64
performance (similar patches are present in ARM64, e.g. loop unroll default
limit, unaligned memory accesses, etc.). These patches are going to the
AArch64 commits list for review.

 

This experiment indicates that from the point of view of correctness and
performance either ARM64 or AArch64 could be the base compiler of choice if
the known correctness issues (in ARM64) and lack of performance tuning (in
AArch64) are addressed.

 

However much more work has to be done to catch up with GCC 4.9 middle-end
and backend optimizations.

 


Benchmark

ARM64 vs GCC 4.9 %

ARM64 vs AArch64  %

ARM64 vs AArch64 patched %


EEMBC (no consumer) geomean

-17

1

-2


EEMBC (consumer only) geomean

-21

-2

-5


Linpack Double

-29

45

-1


Linpack Single

-51

40

1


SPEC2000 geomean

-6

0

1

 

Thanks,

Ana.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Tim Northover
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:04 AM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: AArch64/ARM64 merge from EuroLLVM

 

Hi again,

 

In my original message I was attempting to summarise the key arguments as I
saw them. Other points came up in the discussion, which Ana kindly recorded
and I'll summarise here:

 

First, extra arguments brought up in favour of each backend (I'll mention
duplicates too so that the list is as complete as possible):

 

+ Register class usage in ARM64 is cleaner.

+ FastISel is on ARM64, but not AArch64. Some TableGen work will be

needed to enable it because of how patterns are written there.

+ There is no macro support in AArch64.

+ Both NEON syntax variants (general & iOS) are supported by ARM64 now.

+ ARM64 assumes neon enabled by default, and indeed has no notion that

a CPU might not have NEON. Instructions will need to be predicated to check
NEON is present and probably some corresponding .cpp changes where it was
also assumed.

+ Inline asm is possibly better in ARM64.

+ Anecdotal evidence suggests it's easier to debug MC layer issues on

ARM64 than on AArch64.

 

Other important points that we discussed:

 

+ We need to setup a buildbot for performance using some real hardware

(volunteers with hardware?) so patches can be validated in the supported
targets. And also for correctness using qemu.

 

+ Google is working on a framework to build and run benchmarks - to be

available soon? And should enable the buildbot setup from item above.

 

+ We need to sort out differences between cortex-a53 and Cyclone model

descriptions (both use the new approach for MI scheduler, but one requires
annotating instructions and the other does not). We should pin down Andy
and
get him to describe the perfect machine model.

 

Cheers.

 

Tim

 

_______________________________________________

LLVM Developers mailing list

  [email protected]
<http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

 <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
  [email protected]
<http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
 <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
 
CD: 4ms