On 20/01/15 13:26, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote:
...
In general, how should someone tuning the compiler for this parameter
select a value that isn't one of (-1, m_i_q_d+1)?
From my experiments it seems there are 4 reasonable values for the parameter:
(-1) autopref turned off, (0) turned on in rank_for_schedule, (m_i_q_d+1)
turned on everywhere. If there is a static constructor generated for tune
tables and it is a problem to have it -- I can shrink acceptable values to
these 3 and call it a day.
You only mention 3 values: what was the fourth?
Typo. No fourth.
It might be better then
to define a set of values that represent each of these cases and only
allow the tuning parameters to select one of those. The init code then
uses that set to select how to set up the various parameters to meet
those goals.
So something like
ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_OFF
ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_RANK
ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_FULL
A patch is attached. I bootstrapped it on arm-linux-gnueabihf. OK to apply?
bootstrap failure on chromebook, reproduced on two chromebook.
see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65020 please.
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
www.linaro.org
