Optimal number and kind of execution units

By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), October 2, 2015 5:14 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 1, 2015 5:38 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on October 1, 2015 11:50 am wrote:
> > David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on October 1, 2015 10:01 am wrote:
> > > It's nice to have more ALUs, but what really matters are the load/store units. Having 10
> > > ALUs with 1 LD/ST unit is really pointless, except on code with insanely high
> > > compute:memory ratios (which isn't most code).
> > >
> > > For a general purpose CPU, I'd focus on getting the load/store right first, then focus
> > > on the ALUs.
> >
> > The number and class of optimal units is a very interesting problem, but in
> > general
ALUs outperform number of L/S units, because it is more probable your code
> > contains sections of intensive compute than otherwise.
>
> This is utter nonsense. Most "compute intensive" sections actually contain a LOT of loads/stores.
> In a previous job I implemented loads that were about as "compute intensive" as they come on
> a 4-wide machine that could do 1 L/S per clock. It has 64 architectural regs (renaming doesn't
> help you here), which is about as good as it gets in terms of avoiding excess memory ops due
> to spills/fills. Even so almost every nontrivial workload ended up constrained by L/S bandwidth,
> and I ended up spending a lot of time implementing in-register blocking schemes etc.
>
> Gabriele has similar horror stories from working with the same architecture.
>
> IMO even a 3:1 alu:mem ratio is uncomfortable, and 2:1
> is a practical minimum to avoid being memory-op-bound.
>

LOL. I didn't mean there is no "LOTS of loads/stores", I did mean that it is more probable to have more compute operations than loads/store operations and, indeed, all designs I know support this asymmetry on the execution units.

Some designs have a 1:1 ratio. E.g. some 4-wide VLIW processors with (1 ALU + 1 mem) [1].

But most designs have more ALUs than mem units. Some designs use simple mem units and then add more ALUs. For instance (4 ALU + 2 mem) or (3 ALU + 1 mem).

Other designs start with a 1:1 ratio and add the possibility of executing simple integer operations on the mem units, which breaks the 1:1 ratio to favor compute over load/store. For instance some (2 ALU + 2 mem) designs can perform up to four integer instructions per cycle on cases when there is no load/store operations.

I still have to find a commercial or academic design that does just the contrary; that is, a design with more mem units than ALUs (or FP units). For instance a design with (1 ALU + 1 FP + 4 mem). I am not saying that weird design doesn't exist, but just I don't know any. Do you?



[1] Before someone comes with another idiotic remark I am not mentioning above all the units of that 4-wide core with (BR + ALU + mem + FP).
< Previous Post in ThreadNext Post in Thread >
TopicPosted ByDate
Update to Intel Optimization ManualSHK2015/09/29 05:38 AM
  gather speedEric Bron2015/09/29 09:43 AM
    gather speedGabriele Svelto2015/09/29 12:00 PM
  Update to Intel Optimization ManualTim McCaffrey2015/09/29 11:18 AM
    Update to Intel Optimization ManualSHK2015/09/29 12:04 PM
      Update to Intel Optimization ManualAnon2015/09/29 02:23 PM
    Update to Intel Optimization Manualnone2015/09/29 10:31 PM
      Update to Intel Optimization ManualMichael S2015/09/30 04:24 AM
    Update to Intel Optimization ManualMichael S2015/09/30 04:30 AM
      Update to Intel Optimization ManualTim McCaffrey2015/09/30 10:01 AM
  5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wouter Tinus2015/09/30 02:14 PM
    5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/09/30 03:30 PM
      5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Alberto2015/10/01 12:13 AM
        5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?anon2015/10/01 02:21 AM
          5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Alberto2015/10/01 04:41 AM
            5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?anon2015/10/01 05:27 AM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Alberto2015/10/01 08:33 AM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?juanrga2015/10/01 10:24 AM
        5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/01 08:57 AM
    5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?juanrga2015/10/01 03:59 AM
      5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wouter Tinus2015/10/01 02:48 PM
        5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?juanrga2015/10/03 03:17 AM
          5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wouter Tinus2015/10/03 11:19 AM
            Are you kidding? (NT)juanrga2015/10/04 05:30 AM
              Are you kidding?Wouter Tinus2015/10/04 03:18 PM
                Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/05 09:46 AM
                  Are you kidding?David Kanter2015/10/05 11:24 AM
                    Are you kidding?anon2015/10/05 09:26 PM
                    Are you kidding?Linus Torvalds2015/10/07 04:49 AM
                      Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/07 10:46 AM
                        Are you kidding?anon2015/10/07 06:21 PM
                  Are you kidding?Wouter Tinus2015/10/05 01:25 PM
                    Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/06 10:17 AM
                      Are you kidding?Stubabe2015/10/07 12:17 AM
                        Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/07 10:56 AM
                          Amazing...Wouter Tinus2015/10/07 11:31 AM
                            Amazing...juanrga2015/10/07 03:45 PM
                          Are you kidding?Stubabe2015/10/07 11:57 AM
                            Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/07 03:59 PM
                          Are you kidding?Wilco2015/10/07 02:07 PM
                            Are you kidding?juanrga2015/10/07 04:33 PM
      5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Eric Bron2015/10/04 04:18 AM
    5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?David Kanter2015/10/01 09:01 AM
      Optimal number and kind of execution unitsjuanrga2015/10/01 10:50 AM
        Optimal number and kind of execution unitsPatrick Chase2015/10/01 04:38 PM
          Optimal number and kind of execution unitsI.S.T.2015/10/01 05:10 PM
            Optimal number and kind of execution unitsPatrick Chase2015/10/01 11:39 PM
          Optimal number and kind of execution unitsExophase2015/10/01 10:11 PM
          Optimal number and kind of execution unitsjuanrga2015/10/02 05:14 AM
      LD/ST unitsSHK2015/10/01 11:11 AM
        LD/ST unitsDavid Kanter2015/10/01 12:54 PM
          LD/ST unitsSHK2015/10/02 04:55 AM
            LD/ST unitsJukka Larja2015/10/02 09:49 PM
        LD/ST unitsMaynard Handley2015/10/01 01:01 PM
          LD/ST unitsanon2015/10/01 09:54 PM
      5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/01 12:57 PM
        5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?David Kanter2015/10/01 03:49 PM
          5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/01 06:21 PM
          5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Exophase2015/10/01 10:07 PM
            5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 12:10 AM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Megol2015/10/02 03:39 AM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Michael S2015/10/02 04:27 AM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 09:37 AM
                  5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?noko2015/10/02 05:19 PM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Exophase2015/10/02 06:43 AM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 09:45 AM
                  5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Exophase2015/10/02 10:23 AM
          5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wilco2015/10/02 12:48 PM
            5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 01:25 PM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wilco2015/10/02 02:26 PM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?noko2015/10/02 05:45 PM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 06:54 PM
            5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?David Kanter2015/10/02 01:59 PM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wilco2015/10/02 02:59 PM
                5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?David Kanter2015/10/02 03:15 PM
                  5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Wilco2015/10/02 04:06 PM
                    LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccnone2015/10/03 01:04 AM
                      LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccWilco2015/10/03 03:02 AM
                        LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccnone2015/10/03 03:11 AM
                          LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccWilco2015/10/03 03:37 AM
                            LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccnone2015/10/03 04:37 AM
                              LDP/STP usage in AArch64 for 403.gccWilco2015/10/03 05:26 AM
                  5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 04:24 PM
              5-6 wide core, why no mention from Intel?Maynard Handley2015/10/02 03:07 PM
  Update to Intel Optimization Manualanon2015/09/30 04:43 PM
  Update to Intel Optimization ManualPatrick Chase2015/09/30 09:44 PM
    Update to Intel Optimization Manualanon2015/09/30 10:49 PM
    Update to Intel Optimization Manualnone2015/09/30 10:50 PM
    Update to Intel Optimization ManualDavid Kanter2015/10/01 12:52 PM
      Update to Intel Optimization ManualPatrick Chase2015/10/01 04:16 PM
        Update to Intel Optimization Manualanon2015/10/01 10:45 PM
Reply to this Topic
Name:
Email:
Topic:
Body: No Text
How do you spell avocado?