Support for XNACK and SRAMECC is not static on some GPUs. We must be able
to differentiate between different scenarios for these dynamic subtarget
features.
The possible settings are:
- Unsupported: The GPU has no support for XNACK/SRAMECC.
- Any: Preference is unspecified. Use conservative settings that can run anywhere.
- Off: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC Off
- On: Request support for XNACK/SRAMECC On
GCNSubtarget will track the four options based on the following criteria. If
the subtarget does not support XNACK/SRAMECC we say the setting is
"Unsupported". If no subtarget features for XNACK/SRAMECC are requested we
must support "Any" mode. If the subtarget features XNACK/SRAMECC exist in the
feature string when initializing the subtarget, the settings are "On/Off".
The defaults are updated to be conservatively correct, meaning if no setting
for XNACK or SRAMECC is explicitly requested, defaults will be used which
generate code that can be run anywhere. This corresponds to the "Any" setting.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85882
Clustering loads has caching benefits, but as far as I know there is no
advantage to clustering stores on any AMDGPU subtargets.
The disadvantage is that it tends to increase register pressure and
restricts scheduling freedom.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85530
If it is load cluster, we don't need to create the dependency edges(SUb->reg) from SUb to SUa
as they both depend on the base register "reg"
+-------+
+----> reg |
| +---+---+
| ^
| |
| |
| |
| +---+---+
| | SUa | Load 0(reg)
| +---+---+
| ^
| |
| |
| +---+---+
+----+ SUb | Load 4(reg)
+-------+
But if it is store cluster, we need to create it as follow shows to avoid the instruction store
depend on scheduled in-between SUb and SUa.
+-------+
+----> reg |
| +---+---+
| ^
| | Missing +-------+
| | +-------------------->+ y |
| | | +---+---+
| +---+-+-+ ^
| | SUa | Store x 0(reg) |
| +---+---+ |
| ^ |
| | +------------------------+
| | |
| +---+--++
+----+ SUb | Store y 4(reg)
+-------+
Reviewed By: evandro, arsenm, rampitec, foad, fhahn
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D72031
