From 5bf0ea2a369ba6974844a93b122a2a4b118f11eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:41:42 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] feedback from rogier bruisse --- simple_v_extension/simple_v_chennai_2018.tex | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/simple_v_extension/simple_v_chennai_2018.tex b/simple_v_extension/simple_v_chennai_2018.tex index ef26dc67a..e185c27f5 100644 --- a/simple_v_extension/simple_v_chennai_2018.tex +++ b/simple_v_extension/simple_v_chennai_2018.tex @@ -92,6 +92,23 @@ } +\frame{\frametitle{What's the value of SV? Why adopt it even in non-V?} + + \begin{itemize} + \item memcpy becomes much smaller (higher bang-per-buck)\vspace{10pt} + \item context-switch (LOAD/STORE multiple): 1-2 instructions\vspace{10pt} + \item greatly-reduced I-cache load (and less reads)\vspace{10pt} + \item parallelisation of C further reduces I-cache (etc.)\vspace{10pt} + \end{itemize} + Note:\vspace{10pt} + \begin{itemize} + \item It's not just about Vectors: it's about instruction effectiveness + \item Anything implementor is not interested in HW-optimising,\\ + let it fall through to exceptions (implement as a trap). + \end{itemize} +} + + \frame{\frametitle{How does Simple-V relate to RVV?} \begin{itemize} -- 2.30.2