Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.arch > #5754

Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea?

Message-ID <4F30907E.4020806@SPAM.comp-arch.net> (permalink)
Date 2012-02-06 18:46 -0800
From "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>
Organization comp-arch.net
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea?
References <ggtgp-A1F9BB.02163102022012@netnews.mchsi.com> <4F2CD63A.4050306@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <ggtgp-25AEB5.07151604022012@netnews.mchsi.com> <4F2EF96A.1040107@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <ggtgp-7BA6C0.05364706022012@netnews.mchsi.com>

Show all headers | View raw


On 2/6/2012 3:36 AM, Brett Davis wrote:
> In article<4F2EF96A.1040107@SPAM.comp-arch.net>,
>   "Andy (Super) Glew"<andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net>  wrote:

>> Although let me note one thing: rotating register files don't change the
>> number of registers that need to be renamed.  They just mean that you
>> either need to rotate the renamings in the register alias table, or that
>> you do some arithmetic on the logical register number before it is renamed.
>
> Is this cheap/free or will it cause issues above 4GHz?
> (As much as I believe high clocks are not possible, times change.)

It costs pipestages. Not frequency.

But as you note below, pipestages have a performance cost.  The rule of 
thumb in the P6 generation was 5% per pipestage. By Willamette, it was 
1% per pipestage - deeper pipelines, and better branch prediction.

> I had heard that one of the big reasons for the failure of the first
> Itanium design had to do with one of the forms of register rotation,
> rumor was late in the design Intel had to add two stages to the pipeline
> to deal with rotation, and this killed all the performance advantage.

I don't know.

Back to comp.arch | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-02 02:16 -0600
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2012-02-02 07:41 -0800
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-02 19:04 +0100
    Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-02 23:16 -0600
      Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-03 18:19 +0100
        Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2012-02-03 13:09 -0500
          Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2012-02-03 12:28 -0800
          Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-03 13:04 -0800
        Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-02-03 19:15 +0000
          Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-02-03 13:08 -0800
            Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Thomas Womack <twomack@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2012-02-03 22:21 +0000
              Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> - 2012-02-03 18:42 -0800
                Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Glen Overby <coreSPAMsample@charter.net> - 2012-03-01 18:18 -0600
            Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-04 13:26 +0000
            Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201202.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-02-05 00:58 +0100
          Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-02-04 21:00 +0100
            Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-05 00:35 -0600
        Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-02-03 10:11 -0800
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-02-03 23:20 +0000
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-03 22:54 -0800
    Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-04 07:15 -0600
      Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-05 13:49 -0800
        Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-06 05:36 -0600
          Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-02-06 18:46 -0800
            Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-28 20:02 -0600
        Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-02-06 12:49 +0000
      Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2012-02-04 11:14 -0800
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-03 06:04 -0800
  Re: Are rotating register files still a bad idea? MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-02-03 12:20 -0800

csiph-web