Re: Software Pipelining

Pertti Kellomaki <pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi>
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:42:19 +0300

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Software Pipelining plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-08-26)
Re:Software Pipelining Jatin_Bhateja@mentor.com (Jatin Bhateja) (2008-08-28)
Re:Software Pipelining plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-08-28)
Re: Software Pipelining pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi (Pertti Kellomaki) (2008-08-29)
Re: Software Pipelining mr.neeraj@gmail.com (Neeraj Goel) (2008-09-02)
Re: Software Pipelining sidtouati@inria.fr (Touati Sid) (2008-09-08)
Re: Software Pipelining kamalpr@hp.com (kamal) (2008-09-10)
Re: Software Pipelining johnhull2008@gmail.com (johnhull2008) (2008-09-11)
Re: Software Pipelining plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-09-16)
Re: Software Pipelining plfriko@yahoo.de (Tim Frink) (2008-09-16)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Pertti Kellomaki <pertti.kellomaki@tut.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:42:19 +0300
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 08-08-072 08-08-086 08-08-092
Keywords: optimize, architecture
Posted-Date: 29 Aug 2008 12:37:11 EDT

Tim Frink wrote:
> My question was if also a significant performance increase for RISC
> architectures with a restricted number of functional units can be
> expected when software pipelining is applied.


I'm not sure about significant increase, but it seems that even with
a small number of FUs pipelining could be used to hide latency (e.g.
memory access). But if FUs are already busy without software
pipelining, then pipelining is not going to make them any busier.
--
Pertti


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.