If we are going to throw away the updated value of CF anyway there is no point
wasting an instruction to invert CF. Add an IR toggle for that so the arm64 JIT
can make better choices.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Optimal blendps is worst case 2 instructions.
FEX's RA doesn't quite get there since it can't see through multiple
instructions with SRA destinations. That'll be fixed in the future.
Optimal blendps is always one instruction, one is a no-op.
We always hit this.
Cleans up the code which had special cased some 32-bit optimization
which is unnecessary now that both 8-bit and 16-bit are also optimized.
When FEX does a VExtractToGPR, the result is zero extended to the full
GPR register size. This means we don't need to do a zero extend when
storing to a guest GPR.
Makes pextr{b,w} optimal now.
Needs #3088 merged first.
In the case that source registers are sequential then this turns in to a
load of the vector constant (2 instructions) and the single tbl
instruction.
If the registers aren't sequential then the tbl turns in to 2 moves and
then the single tbl, which with zero-cycle rename isn't too bad.
Since this is a worst case option this is significantly better than the
previous implementation doing a bunch of inserts which was always 9
instructions.
We should still strive to implement faster versions without the use of
TBL2 if possible but this makes it less of a concern.
Hits a whole bunch of common cases, most of which then emit optimal code
generation.
Two cases that use VInsElement hit the RA quirk where the SRA
destination is dead but RA doesn't see it, so it ends up doing a couple
moves. If RA gets fixed then those two moves will go away.
There are definitely still cases that we could emit more optimal code.
Additionally we could implement a TBL2 IR operation to do a LUT approach
for ones we don't cover.
Problem with implementing a TBL2 ir operation is that we have no way to
ensure registers are sequential so we would need to always do moves
```asm
ldr v2, <LUT Table>
mov v0, v16
mov v1, v18
tbl v16.16b, { v0.16b, v1.16b }, v2.16b
```
Which to be fair isn't terrible, and if we're lucky that the guest uses
sequential registers we can naturally get the more optimal code path.
Ideally our RA could push some operations in to sequential registers but
that's not possible currently.
I'll do a follow-up PR that implements TBL2.
Move instruction to itself here is a nop.
Need to be careful about AVX operations which use a different handler
since those might actually zero the upper bits on 128-bit move
Currently FEX will always jump out of the JIT any time FCW was getting
written to, ensuring that the softfloat state is setup to rounding at
the time of FCW getting written.
This has the unintended side-effect that even in "x87 reduced precision"
mode we were jumping out of the JIT.
This hit a real world use case of an installer reloading FCW after every
x87 operation and generating a block with 2297 instructions.
Instead when jumping out of the JIT for handling x87 operations, load
FCW and pass it as the first argument of the handler. Setting the
softfloat state at that point.
This helps the installer's hottest block by cutting it down to 1477
instructions. 64.3% of the original size. The code block is still
burning 90% of the CPU time of the installer but the performance is
significantly better while it is doing its decompression.
In order to optimize this installer's block of code more then we will
likely need to optimize out x87 stack usage.
This wasn't implemented initially for the interpreter and x86 JIT.
This meant we are maintaining two codepaths. Implement these operations
in the interpreter and x86 JIT so we no longer need to do that.
The emitted code in the x86 JIT is hot garbage, but it's only necessary
for correctness testing, not performance testing there.
Now that the RCLSE pass finally optimizes redundant loads again this
optimization that lives in the OpcodeDispatcher can be removed.
With InstCountCI reran, the pblendvb results don't change at all, as
expected.
Now the calculation of PF is entirely deferred, by inverting our internal
representation of PF. All the (e.g.) logical op needs to do is store the low
8-bits of the result.
This is a bit of a mixed bag. Primary ALU ops all save an instruction, by
skip the XOR. Loading PF takes an extra instruction, that's expected. The tricky
cases are:
* Zeroing PF. This now requires writing 1 instead of 0, which may require an
extra move for the constant. Some of this will go away when we merge PF+AF
into a single register, which is next up on the list. In that case, the
two stores will turn into 1 `or`. So if we need to write a 1 to PF (zeroing
x86 view of PF), that will get absorbed into the or, if we also write AF. If
we leave AF undefined and need to write a 1, that's a single mov instruction
and we couldn't do better anyway if not inverted (since we'd still have a mov
wzr even then). So in view of the future work, this isn't something I'm
concerned about.
* Float comparisons that put Unordered into PF. These require an extra invert to
match the new convention. These are already so unnecessarily bloated that I'm
not convinced I'm making things materially worse here. But we realistically
need multiple destination support in the IR to fix this particular mess.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Now that PF calculation is deferred, the cost of calculating PF correctly should
be tolerable. Remove the speed hack to skip PF. It's fundamentally broken, and
there are enough broken things in FEX as it is that we don't need to maintain
this one ;-)
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
AF is calculated as:
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ Res)[4]
Due to the extract, this is equivalent to
((Src1 ^ Src2) ^ (Res ^ 1))[4]
We already store (Res ^ 1) as the PF byte. So, it suffices to store
AF Byte = Src1 ^ Src2
and then we can recover the flag value
AF = (AF Byte ^ PF Byte)[4]
This saves an instruction from the AF calculation. It does couple PF/AF writes.
In practice, most instructions fall into one of these categories:
* Both PF and AF written together, the coupling is correct.
* PF written but AF invalidated, irrelevant.
* Both invalidated, irrelevant.
None of these require special handling. Where we do need special handling is
when we want to write them separately, in which case we can fix-up the value of
AF as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
Use an explicit invalidate, so we can zero easily enough if we need to for
debugging later but we can save the instrs ordinarily.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
The AF calculation is a Bfe of an XOR result. We can't defer the XOR (since it
combines multiple inputs into one), but we can & should defer the Bfe. Since AF
is written much more often than it is read, this should come out ahead.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
For now these are trivial to let us refactor without functional changes. Later
in this series, they will be made nontrivial to let us defer AF calculation.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
With Or, Orlshl, Bfe, and Bfi there were some assumptions made that i8
and i16 operations made sense. Which required us to disable the IR
validation for these operations when it was just added.
This removes the final assumptions about these IR operations supporting
these small operating sizes allowing us to enable the IR validation.
Also a very minor optimization by moving a couple extracts from source
before trying to BFI from it, making RA more optimal.
The FXSAVE and FSAVE tag words are written out in different formats,
with FXSAVE using an abridged version that lacks the zero/special/valid
distinction. Switch to using this abridged version internally for
simplicity, and to allow the calculation of zero/special/valid
distinction to be deferred until an fxsave instruction (in the future,
currently the distinction is ignored and only valid/empty states are
possible).
32-bit or 64-bit addition without carry-in. This matches the baseline hardware
semantic. Generalizing to support other cases can come later, this should be a
win already.
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
For correct carry/overflow behaviour, we need to use a compare of the right size. The existing logic
to look at the source sizes doesn't work for this, since a 32-bit NEG instruction will compare a
32-bit source with a 64-bit _Constant(0) .. which needs a 32-bit compare but the existing logic
would use a 64-bit compare. This is not yet a bug fix, since the overflow code is currently in
software for 32-bit negates so it's irrelevant. But it should prevent regressions from using native
compares later in this series. Presumably this was intended all along but left as-is to avoid
disturbing instcountci once noticed. Time to disturb CI!
Signed-off-by: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>
This will let us reuse it in some cases. In some of these
implementations there is a bad code smell around using the zero register
but that isn't going to get solved in this commit.
A bunch of the AES operations take a zero register upfront and we
currently materialize it for each instruction.
Considering that most AES operations are used back to back, we can
eliminate these materializations by caching it between instructions.
Additionally removes a move in the optimal case when destination matches
the state register, which is exactly what the SSE operation ends up
doing.
AESKeyGenAssist has an edge case that if the destination RA overlaps the
zero register then we still need to eat a move, hopefully doesn't happen
too frequently in practice. This is also the lesser used instruction so
it isn't a big deal. RA constraints could solve that still.
This instruction has xmm0 be one of the implicit sources. We were
loading xmm0 twice. #2700 would also fix this but that breaks other
things for some reason.
We can load the swizzle table from our constant pool now. This removes
the only usage of VTMP3 from our Arm64 JIT.
I would say the this is now optimal for the version without RCON set.
With RCON we could technically make some of the move of the constant
more optimal.
Saw a few locations in here that we operate things at 64-bit
unconditionally around pointer calculation. Will be coming back for
those when running in 32-bit mode.
This is the last of the implicit sized ALU operations! After this I'll
be going through the IR more individually to try and remove any
stragglers.
Then should be able to start cleaning up and actually optimizing GPR
operations.
Alyssa Rosenzweig