On 12/23/2011 12:46 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > In the end I tried an ad-hoc approach in an attempt to do something > about (2), (3) and (4b). The idea was to construct a preliminary > "model" schedule in which the only objective is to keep register > pressure to a minimum. This schedule ignores pipeline characteristics, > latencies, and the number of available registers. The maximum pressure > seen in this initial model schedule (MP) is then the benchmark for ECC(X).
Interesting. I had also thought about trying to address the problem in the scheduler, so I'll just share some of my thoughts (not intended as a negative comment on your approach). Essentially the problem I usually see is that the wider your machine gets, the happier sched1 will be to fill unused slots with instructions that could just as well be scheduled 200 cycles later. That's really an artifact of forward scheduling, so why not schedule both forwards and then backwards (or the other way round)? Produce an initial schedule, then perform a fixup phase: start at the other end and look for instructions that can be scheduled in a wide range of cycles, and move them if doing so can be shown to reduce register pressure, and we retain a correct schedule. This can be done without trying to have a global pressure estimate which has the problems you noted. Doing this would require constructing a backwards DFA, and I gave up on this for the moment after a day or so spent with genautomata, but it should be possible. Bernd
