On 2020-04-25 8:46 p.m., krste@... wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 18:23:07 -0400, "David Horner" <ds2horner@...> said:
| First some observations from the revised LMUL.
| *1 The format for a given SLEN and SEW is the same for all LMUL>=1
| *2 LMUL=n is equivalent to LMUL=2 * n with vl < 1/2 vlmax at that level,
| for n=1,2,4.
| *3 Doubling SEW halves the number of elements in the same number of
| register bits, and visa versa..
| The first provide the benefits that quad or higher widening with ESEW <=
| SLEN stays in data lanes.
| (resolving an ugly characteristic of quad widening.)
| The combined these leads to a realization that vl is the determinant of
| the register group size.
| If vsetvli were separately provided the number of physical registers to
| calculate vl, LMUL>1 is eliminated.
Hmm, LMUL _is_ the number of architectural registers to allocate.
Yes it is. However, it needn't be, and allowing it to not be gives greater flexibility at minimal cost.
This was a suggestion to implement #418. [Introduce vlmt (vl multiplicative threshold) / VLMT Vector LiMiT]
| The format for LMUL=1/2
| - does not align with LMUL=1 complicating mixed width instructions.
I believe it does align.
You are correct.
I don't understand the issue you're trying to address below. I think
the new scheme already has the properties you're trying to attain.
The new scheme does do as I propose.
I misread the application of the 1st LMUL*VLEN/SEW "elements" as "segments". (as described in 4.3, I worked back from 4.3 to 4.1b )
And I then failed to validate that misinterpretation with the diagrams (which I looked at but misread with the wrong mindset in place. ).
Sorry for the noise.
The wasteful of space still applies (As does the dynamic VLEN to have useful re-nameable tails)
| - is wasteful of space
| - but it does reduce the active portion of registers, that could
| benefit renaming machines (if they rename at sufficient low granularity).
| Noting that point *2 could be extended into LMUL=1/2 and in conjunction
| with point *3:
| Widening operations to LMUL=1 can equivalently be sourced from
| LMUL=1 where
| source is 1/2 SEW of widened result and
| vl is length of widened result.
| Rephrased relative to source SEW:
| At LMUL=1, widening operations
| take source of SEW width elements and length vl,
| and create widened result as LMUL=1 with 2*SEW and length
| of vl.
this is the multiplicative threshold vl proposal #418 that eliminates LMUL>1.
(I will reapply to this proposal and suggest an alternate encoding for vsetvli that uses none of the immediate bits).
| I recommend this uniformity apply through "fractional modes" that
| allocate 1/2, 1/4, etc. of the physical registers bits.
wonderful to be in agreement here.
| A specific optimization, such as dynamic VLEN can address the renaming
| micro-architectures efficiency issue.
| Instead I recommend "fractional modes" that fill 1/2 of each SLEN before
| moving on to next physical register, with one mode using the first half
| and the other mode the other half.
This is to not waste the space.
| Similar to proposed in #412 Fractional vtype field vfill – Fractional
| Fill order and Fractional Instruction eLement Location.
| As that proposal was designed to be added to the previous LMUL modes, I
| am working through details of such encoding now for a revised proposal.
| However, in the interim I thought these considerations might be helpful
| as is.
Greatly appreciate your quick response. Wonderful to not have to argue the uniformity position.