Hi Edwin, > This patch copies the vector reservations from generic-ooo.md and > inserts them into generic.md and sifive.md. Creates new vector crypto related > insn reservations.
In principle, the changes look good to me but I wonder if we could split off the vector parts from generic-ooo into their own md file (generic-vector-ooo or so?) and include this in the others? Or is there a reason why you decided against this? A recurring question in vector cost model discussions seems to be how to handle the situation when a tune model does not specify a "vector tune model". The problem exists for the scheduler descriptions and the normal vector cost model (and possibly insn_costs as well). Juzhe just implemented a fallback so we always use the "generic rvv" cost model. Your changes would be in the same vein and if we could split them off then we'd be able to easier exchange one scheduler descriptions for another one (say if one tune model wants to use an in-order vector model). There is also still the question of whether to set all latencies to 1 for an OOO core but this question should be settled separately as soon as we have proper hardware benchmark results. If so we would probably rename generic-vector-ooo into generic-vector-in-order ;) Regards Robin
