From 03f7eceb57235cb0bdc751bbc242d099becf8b4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Th=C3=A9ophile=20Bastian?= Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:08:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Automating manual frontend: discussion on loss of precision vs. automating --- manuscrit/40_A72-frontend/30_manual_frontend.tex | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/manuscrit/40_A72-frontend/30_manual_frontend.tex b/manuscrit/40_A72-frontend/30_manual_frontend.tex index 5dd7a14..56ac50b 100644 --- a/manuscrit/40_A72-frontend/30_manual_frontend.tex +++ b/manuscrit/40_A72-frontend/30_manual_frontend.tex @@ -550,3 +550,12 @@ between processors' frontends. A comparative study of their respective importance to accurately model frontends, and ways to circumvent their impact on the measure of $\cycF{\kerK}$ to count \uops{} per instruction would also be needed. + +Such fully-automated methods would probably be unable to account for +``unusual'' frontend bottlenecks ---~at least not at the level of detail that +\eg{} \uica{} authors gather for Intel frontends~\cite{uica}. This level of +detail, however, is possible exactly because the authors' restricted their +scope to microarchitectures that share a lot of similarity, coming from the +same manufacturer. Assessing extent of the loss of precision of an +automatically-generated model, and its gain of precision \wrt{} a model without +frontend, remains to be done.