PankajDwivedi-25 wrote: > > > Why would you restrict this to "non-zero counter values"? > > > > > > When a waitcnt already has a zero counter value expanding it would just > > generate another waitcnt(0), which provides no additional profiling > > granularity. If you believe there's a use case for expanding waitcnt(0), > > I'd be happy to discuss it. > > The requirement is that instead of emitting e.g. `s_waitcnt vmcnt(2)` you > should emit e.g.: > > ``` > s_waitcnt vmcnt(4) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(3) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(2) > ``` > > The starting value "4" here is assuming that SIInsertWaitcnts already knows > that the upper bound on this counter's value is 5, so 4 is the highest value > you can wait for that will have any effect. > > Similarly instead of `s_waitcnt vmcnt(0)` you should emit: > > ``` > s_waitcnt vmcnt(4) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(3) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(2) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(1) > s_waitcnt vmcnt(0) > ```
looks like outstanding value is always 0 in these cases. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169345 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
