[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/10] x86emul: support AVX512_BF16 insns
On 27.03.2020 19:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 24/03/2020 12:30, Jan Beulich wrote: >> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c >> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/evex-disp8.c >> @@ -550,6 +550,12 @@ static const struct test avx512_4vnniw_5 >> INSN(p4dpwssds, f2, 0f38, 53, el_4, d, vl), >> }; >> >> +static const struct test avx512_bf16_all[] = { >> + INSN(vcvtne2ps2bf16, f2, 0f38, 72, vl, d, vl), >> + INSN(vcvtneps2bf16, f3, 0f38, 72, vl, d, vl), >> + INSN(vdpbf16ps, f3, 0f38, 52, vl, d, vl), >> +}; >> + >> static const struct test avx512_bitalg_all[] = { >> INSN(popcnt, 66, 0f38, 54, vl, bw, vl), >> INSN(pshufbitqmb, 66, 0f38, 8f, vl, b, vl), >> @@ -984,6 +990,7 @@ void evex_disp8_test(void *instr, struct >> RUN(avx512pf, 512); >> RUN(avx512_4fmaps, 512); >> RUN(avx512_4vnniw, 512); >> + RUN(avx512_bf16, all); >> RUN(avx512_bitalg, all); >> RUN(avx512_ifma, all); >> RUN(avx512_vbmi, all); >> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c >> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/test_x86_emulator.c >> @@ -4516,6 +4516,80 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) >> else >> printf("skipped\n"); >> >> + if ( stack_exec && cpu_has_avx512_bf16 ) >> + { >> + decl_insn(vcvtne2ps2bf16); >> + decl_insn(vcvtneps2bf16); >> + decl_insn(vdpbf16ps); >> + static const struct { >> + float f[16]; >> + } in1 = {{ >> + 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 >> + }}, in2 = {{ >> + 1, -2, 3, -4, 5, -6, 7, -8, 9, -10, 11, -12, 13, -14, 15, -16 >> + }}, out = {{ >> + 1 * 1 + 2 * 2, 3 * 3 + 4 * 4, >> + 5 * 5 + 6 * 6, 7 * 7 + 8 * 8, >> + 9 * 9 + 10 * 10, 11 * 11 + 12 * 12, >> + 13 * 13 + 14 * 14, 15 * 15 + 16 * 16, >> + 1 * 1 - 2 * 2, 3 * 3 - 4 * 4, >> + 5 * 5 - 6 * 6, 7 * 7 - 8 * 8, >> + 9 * 9 - 10 * 10, 11 * 11 - 12 * 12, >> + 13 * 13 - 14 * 14, 15 * 15 - 16 * 16 >> + }}; >> + >> + printf("%-40s", "Testing vcvtne2ps2bf16 64(%ecx),%zmm1,%zmm2..."); >> + asm volatile ( "vmovups %1, %%zmm1\n" >> + put_insn(vcvtne2ps2bf16, >> + /* vcvtne2ps2bf16 64(%0), %%zmm1, %%zmm2 */ >> + ".byte 0x62, 0xf2, 0x77, 0x48, 0x72, 0x51, >> 0x01") >> + :: "c" (NULL), "m" (in2) ); >> + set_insn(vcvtne2ps2bf16); >> + regs.ecx = (unsigned long)&in1 - 64; >> + rc = x86_emulate(&ctxt, &emulops); >> + if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY || !check_eip(vcvtne2ps2bf16) ) >> + goto fail; >> + printf("pending\n"); >> + >> + printf("%-40s", "Testing vcvtneps2bf16 64(%ecx),%ymm3..."); >> + asm volatile ( put_insn(vcvtneps2bf16, >> + /* vcvtneps2bf16 64(%0), %%ymm3 */ >> + ".byte 0x62, 0xf2, 0x7e, 0x48, 0x72, 0x59, >> 0x01") >> + :: "c" (NULL) ); >> + set_insn(vcvtneps2bf16); >> + rc = x86_emulate(&ctxt, &emulops); >> + if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY || !check_eip(vcvtneps2bf16) ) >> + goto fail; >> + asm ( "vmovdqa %%ymm2, %%ymm5\n\t" >> + "vpcmpeqd %%zmm3, %%zmm5, %%k0\n\t" >> + "kmovw %%k0, %0" >> + : "=g" (rc) : "m" (out) ); >> + if ( rc != 0xffff ) >> + goto fail; >> + printf("pending\n"); >> + >> + printf("%-40s", "Testing vdpbf16ps 128(%ecx),%zmm2,%zmm4..."); >> + asm volatile ( "vmovdqa %%ymm3, %0\n\t" >> + "vmovdqa %%ymm3, %1\n" >> + put_insn(vdpbf16ps, >> + /* vdpbf16ps 128(%2), %%zmm2, %%zmm4 */ >> + ".byte 0x62, 0xf2, 0x6e, 0x48, 0x52, 0x61, >> 0x02") >> + : "=&m" (res[0]), "=&m" (res[8]) >> + : "c" (NULL) >> + : "memory" ); >> + set_insn(vdpbf16ps); >> + regs.ecx = (unsigned long)res - 128; >> + rc = x86_emulate(&ctxt, &emulops); >> + if ( rc != X86EMUL_OKAY || !check_eip(vdpbf16ps) ) >> + goto fail; >> + asm ( "vcmpeqps %1, %%zmm4, %%k0\n\t" >> + "kmovw %%k0, %0" >> + : "=g" (rc) : "m" (out) ); >> + if ( rc != 0xffff ) >> + goto fail; >> + printf("okay\n"); >> + } > > I've just tried this out on an SDP. > > Testing vcvtne2ps2bf16 64(%ecx),%zmm1,%zmm2...pending > Testing vcvtneps2bf16 64(%ecx),%ymm3... pending > Testing vdpbf16ps 128(%ecx),%zmm2,%zmm4...okay > ... > Testing avx512_bf16/all disp8 handling...okay > > What is the "pending" supposed to signify? I can see that these three > are linked, and that is fine, but at the point we've checked the > intermediate results, it should be "okay", no? I didn't think so, and hence I've used "pending". Whether the result of the first two is indeed correct is only known after the 3rd. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |