On 6/12/18 10:49 AM, Herve Jourdain wrote:
> So I agree with you about restricting to what gcc can support, that's
> actually my proposal (actually, probably a subset of what gcc can support).
> So for armv8, gcc supports, as architectures: armv8-a, armv8.1-a, armv8.2-a,
> armv8.3-a, armv8.4-a.
> Then, you can add the supported options with a "+" after the architecture.
> Options supported for armv8-a are: '+crc', '+simd', '+crypto', '+nocrypto',
> Options supported for armv8.1-a are: '+simd', '+crypto', '+nocrypto', '+nofp'
> Options supported for armv8.2-a and armv8.3-a are: '+fp16', '+fp16fml',
> '+simd', '+crypto', '+dotprod', '+nocrypto', '+nofp'
> Options supported for armv8.4-a are: '+fp16', '+simd', '+crypto', '+dotprod',
> '+nocrypto', '+nofp'
> As you can see, proposals for armv8-a, whether my previous one, the new one
> here, or even the one I have updated and used in production, just capture the
> existing complexity, and not add to it.
> and support for armv8.1-a, armv8.2-a, armv8.3-a, armv8.4a will only add more
> options down the line.
Sounds a lot like the above would be TUNE_FEATURES to me.. (even if we don't
necessarily define a tune that uses them -- if it's standard another layer
> Regarding fpu, gcc supports the following for armv8: fp-armv8, neon-fp-armv8,
> and crypto-neon-fp-armv8.
> Regarding cpu, I believe that the armv8 supported ones are: ‘cortex-a32’,
> ‘cortex-a35’, ‘cortex-a53’, ‘cortex-a55’, ‘cortex-a57’, ‘cortex-a72’,
> ‘cortex-a73’, ‘cortex-a75’.
> I personally would like to keep tuning for a specific CPU as much as possible
> (again I'm working closely with various ARM-based SoCs, so my opinion might
> be tainted).
Thats a lot of options, but if we focus on TUNE_FEATURES, I think it's a bit
more reasonable to support all of this.. (maybe that is what needs to be done in
the future as well for other architectures.. focus on the 'gcc' behavior and
generate TUNE_FEATURES matching the compiler.)
I'd like Khem's opinion on how crazy of an idea that is.
> One thing that could be done to simplify things would be to just use the cpu,
> and add the options to it. Gcc supports adding options to the cpu.
> '+nofp' for ‘cortex-a32’, ‘cortex-a35’, ‘cortex-a53’ and ‘cortex-a55’
> '+crypto' for ‘cortex-a32’, ‘cortex-a35’, ‘cortex-a53’, ‘cortex-a55’,
> ‘cortex-a57’, ‘cortex-a72’, ‘cortex-a73’, ‘cortex-a75’
> That could simplify the tune settings, but would give less control than what
> we currently have.
> As you might have guessed, I do put a specific emphasis on the crypto option,
> and on the neon option, which are the most interesting for armv8 in my
In the past 'crypto' options have only been assembly.. if that's changed it has
definitely opened up a new facet in all of this work.
> Regarding thumb, always adding it to the tune without creating specific
> variants with or without thumb makes sense, since the tune is normally about
> the SoC capabilities, and arv7 and armv8 both support it.
> You can always select whether you want thumb or not by setting
> ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET appropriately at the distro level.
Yes, that might be needed now that thumb is theoretically always supposed to be
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hatle [mailto:mark.ha...@windriver.com]
> Sent: mardi 12 juin 2018 16:32
> To: Herve Jourdain <herve.jourd...@neuf.fr>; 'Koen Kooi'
> <k...@dominion.thruhere.net>; 'Randy Li' <ay...@soulik.info>
> Cc: 'OE-core' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 0/4] Add tune for ARMv8 and some cortex
> On 6/12/18 4:30 AM, Herve Jourdain wrote:
>> I believe I'm the "original author" of some patch attempt at tackling this
>> problem, more than a year ago, as referenced in this series.
>> And I understand why everyone, Khem being the first and not the only one,
>> would like some "simpler" things for ARM.
>> But the problem is that ARM-based SoCs are very diverse, and ARM does have a
>> number of optional IP blocks (such as crypto, but neon is another one, and
>> there are others), defined for each architecture. Then ARM defines some
>> "standard" SoCs (like cortex-A53, cortex-A57, ...) which may set some of
>> those optional IPs as required for that SoC, and the rest still as optional.
>> And SoC vendors decide what optional IPs they will implement or not...
> Simplification is a goal in this, but as you said, not always reasonable with
> a processor designed to be customized.
> Typically true customization (vendor specific) doesn't belong in the oe-core
> tune files, but stuff that is architecturally defined may.
>> So when we're talking "cortex-A53", it's not necessarily the same cortex-A53
>> for all SoC vendors.
>> GCC does support all that complexity. So the main question is, do we want to
>> be able to generate code that could take advantage of the optional IPs
>> present on a SoC? Or do we prefer to settle for the least common denominator?
> I think this is the key. What combinations does GCC support (actually
> code for?) If GCC can't generate code for that combination, then I don't
> believe it belongs as a tune in OE-Core, unless there is a compelling
> argument that assembly level functions will be common enough to justify it.
>> As someone who is close to the SoC, I definitely would prefer to be able to
>> take advantage of the optional IPs present on an ARM SoC, and I'd rather
>> have a system that can at least support that even if it's slightly more
>> complex. This said, once it's done, most people won't look under the hood
>> but just use it, so the complexity would end up being hidden - much like now
>> with armv7.
> And this is why my GCC statement is being made. Most developers will define
> a tune, but will never go into the assembly realm. They simply don't have
> the knowledge or care to devote a bunch of time for a .5% performance
> If GCC can add specific optimizations, then we've hit the 'trivial
> phase, and a tune may be justified. We just need to be careful of the
> variant names -- once set they will last a VERY long time.
>> I've personally followed up on my patches from last year, and I now have a
>> slightly modified/simplified version of them, which I've used to build some
>> production-ready environments using cortex-a53/armv8 tunes, that trigger the
>> optimization for cortex-a53 + neon. And if the SoC I'm working with had the
>> crypto extension, I would be very happy to build for it, by just switching
>> the tune I use for my cortex-a53 to the armv8 tune supporting crypto.
>> So I believe now may be a good time to talk this over again, because we're
>> basically building for cortex-a53 with cortexa7/armv7ve, and that is not the
>> most optimal thing to do in my opinion (like, some instructions that were
>> native in armv7ve are simulated in armv8).
> I don't think anyone objects to armv8, but I was under the impression that
> things like neon were now 'required', (i.e. were not supposed to be removed
> from the instruction set.) So for anything that is now standard, they would
> be the definition of armv8.. and if there are rare, but customized version
> w/o neon or something else -- then I think it's a silicon vendor specific
> tune that is needed.
> In the end it comes down to what has ARM specified, what does GCC support,
> and what is ACTUALLY being broadly implemented.
>> One thing that I did come up as a simplification was the handling of thumb,
>> I don't think it needs to be an option anymore, since its support is
>> mandatory in armv8 (but I think it was also the case in armv7). That
>> simplifies things a bit, but nothing fundamental, you still need to carry
>> the support for the optional IPs around...
> The only reason to continue with the existing 32-bit naming conventions (t,
> neon, vfp, etc) is to show the compatibility matrix. I don't know if this
> actually justifies the extensions though. (I do know I have customers who
> never want to use thumb or always [as much as possible] want to use thumb
> based on their own performance requirements and designs.. so thumb being
> switchable is still a desired attribute -- at least in the armv7 designs I
> know of.)
>> And in addition to what I proposed to support last year, we indeed now have
>> to add armv8.1a, armv8.2a, armv8.3a, armv8.4a (so far...), which each have
>> their own specificities/differences that make it unlikely to be supported
>> within a single file.
> IF the instruction scheduling, generated instructions, optimizations, etc are
> truely different.. then we should call them armv81a, etc.. (I don't believe
> can use a '.' for various reasons..) But if there is no difference in the
> compiler behavior, or the generated code.. and it's just assembly level
> instruction additions -- then I'm reluctant to add these tunes as they can
> give a false impression.
>> Thoughts? Can we talk this over, so we can have a chance to have a good
>> support for armv8-32 in oe, instead of everyone doing its own?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Koen Kooi
>> Sent: mardi 12 juin 2018 11:01
>> To: Randy Li <ay...@soulik.info>
>> Cc: OE-core <email@example.com>
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 0/4] Add tune for ARMv8 and some
>> cortex processors
>>> Op 9 jun. 2018, om 08:26 heeft Randy Li <ay...@soulik.info> het volgende
>>> I read the ARMv8 manual again, it looks the hardware float is
>>> mandatory in Linux Distributions and toolchain libraries. Even some
>>> cortex processors can be configured without FPU/NEON hardware, but I
>>> don't think they would be used in openembeded core.
>>> So I can assume the NEON(SIMD) would exist all the time. Leaving only
>>> the crc and crypto instructions are optional here.
>>> Randy Li (4):
>>> arch-armv8a.inc: add tune include for armv8
>>> tune-cortexa35: add tunes for ARM Cortex-A35
>>> tune-cortexa32: add tunes for ARM Cortex-A32
>>> tune-cortexa72: add tunes for ARM Cortex-A72
>> Having been forced to deal with the mess that’s 32-bit arm tunes: Let’s only
>> add an implementation specific tunes *after* having seem conclusive,
>> repeatable benchmark results. 90% of the 32 bit tune files are placebo
>> effect and just explode number of package archs in your distro feed. The
>> goal of aarch64 was to stop being different for the sake of being different,
>> let’s not make a mess because we are used to messes.
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core mailing list