Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| 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> |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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