Thoughts for Vector TG Meeting Friday June 12

David Horner

There hasn't been any traffic on this feed about  vector layout, and specifically about v0.9 SLEN size standards.
    So I will add my thoughts here with the hopes that I will not take excessive time during the meeting.

A) I concur with the v0.9 approach for in register layout.

B) Specifically I consider VLEN=SLEN as the default layout
    It is quite appropriate for the minimalist implementations with VLEN<128 and reasonable for 128 and 256.

C) The SLEN<VLEN mapping
            (successive elements are round-robin allocated to successive SLEN chunks)
             is a reasonable extension to the default layout.

D) I don't agree that a specific SLEN be stipulated at the ISA level (likely it is appropriate in use-case profiles)
        The most appropriate "stipulated" SLEN is already implementation dependent, and is and will change with technology used.
        I consider it analogous to MIPS choosing one instruction delayed branch
            (vs two or more instructions executed in the branch shadow),
        when technology/implementation changes have obsoleted it.

E) A specified SLEN will not eliminate the in-resister vs in-memory program anomalies.
        None of the reasonable SLEN values (i.e. >=64) eliminate the duality that exists
            between (at least) VLEN=32 (and 64) implementations vs
            SLEN<VLEN ones.
         Software may be sufficient to address the layout discrepancies.
         Hardware assist (e.g. casting instructions) may help.
         Hardware detection, (e.g. trapping when stored SEW mismatches read SEW) may ensure safety, and also allow optimization.
         I have a specific suggestion below in G.

F) I question that we need to only have this extension.
        Rather than the only allowed approach, I believe others are not only possible, but each has specific merit.
        a) The v0.8 approach has notable drawbacks and so I concur that it should not be the espoused approach.
        b) Fractional register interleave is another viable approach that resolves the widening/narrowing alignment issue
                and also provides for even/odd argument handling.
         c) further variants of V0.9 (e.g. clustering size) provide specific benefits
        I believe these and other alternative mappings should not be locked out of the standard.
        Rather, the standard should accommodate the availability of non-standard and other extended layouts.
            (just as the RVI base architecture is a base for extensive experimentation and adaptation)

G) To allow multiple register layouts I propose an application writable field (It could be vcsr) that contains the mapping the code expects.
        I propose a 4 bit field that initially has two modes defined:
            zero (0) - reserved
            one (1) -  the default mapping (VLEN=SLEN)
            two (2)  - the v0.9 proposed SLEN<VLEN.
            three (3) - software manages with either of these modes.
            four through 11 are initially reserved with 12 through 15 user defined.
        If the hardware cannot or is not configured to run in the written  mode an exception occurs.
        This provides a mechanism to ensure software is aware of its operating layout mode and
            to allow additional layout expansion.
        We can expect that the "official" software ecosystem will initially only support the "standard" layouts,
             but will allow customization and  as demand occurs controlled expansion.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.