[timhh]

I like RISC-V (it's been my job for the last 7 years) but this is nonsense. Not everything RISC-V is good. CLIC was awful (thankfully it has been abandoned). The spec is not especially well written - the style is inconsistent due to being written by many authors, and it is waaaay too much of a textbook rather than a proper spec. (There is some ongoing work to improve this tbf.)

There's a practically unending list of undefined/implementation defined behaviours, which is great if you want to implement an ultra minimal microcontroller with 100 flops, but pretty awful otherwise.

Requiring the C (compressed) extension in the RVA profiles was definitely a mistake. The lack of true 16/64kB pages and conditional moves are probably a mistake (though fixable).

I don't know how any of these make it more robust and mature.

(But to be clear, I still think it's pretty good overall.)

[rwmj]

I broadly agree with your points except one.

Requiring C (compressed) is necessary to avoid splitting the Linux ecosystem. Chips lacking C would never be able to run binaries compiled with C. There's no practical way for such binaries to detect this and work around it at runtime as they can with other extensions. And emulation would be super-slow given a large proportion of instructions are compressed.

Also the excuse given by Qualcomm - that it would make all instructions fixed length and so much easier to decode - is just wrong. RISC-V supports variable length instructions, even much longer than 32 bits, and you've just got to deal with it. Just because Qualcomm acquired a company with a microarchitecture that could only deal with fixed length instructions is no reason to break the ecosystem.

Also interested in the problems you see in Zicond. It claims at least to give you most of the benefit of conditional moves using only two instructions, but I've not actually tried using it. (https://docs.riscv.org/reference/isa/extensions/zicond/_atta...)

[timhh]

> Requiring C (compressed) is necessary to avoid splitting the Linux ecosystem. Chips lacking C would never be able to run binaries compiled with C.

Yes that's precisely the point of excluding it from the RVA profiles. It would mean that Linux distros don't compile code with C enabled, so chips are free to not support C and therefore can achieve higher performance (probably). And it opens 3/4 of the instruction encoding space for use by other things.

> Also the excuse given by Qualcomm - that it would make all instructions fixed length and so much easier to decode - is just wrong. RISC-V supports variable length instructions, even much longer than 32 bits, and you've just got to deal with it.

It's not wrong. RISC-V defines a mechanism by which 48/64 bit instructions might be used, but currently none are actually defined. All existing instructions are 16 or 32 bits. Without C all instructions are 32 bits. You don't have to deal with 48 bit instructions because there aren't any.

It's possible that they will add some in future, but I'm doubtful of that because a) it would be a huge pain, and b) they didn't for Vector which is where it would have been most useful.

> Just because Qualcomm acquired a company with a microarchitecture that could only deal with fixed length instructions is no reason to break the ecosystem.

Yeah it was too late to change but that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake.

Zicond looks good - I forgot that exists.

[camel-cdr]

> Yes that's precisely the point of excluding it from the RVA profiles. It would mean that Linux distros don't compile code with C enabled, so chips are free to not support C and therefore can achieve higher performance (probably). And it opens 3/4 of the instruction encoding space for use by other things.

The debate was between 16/32/48/64-bit instructions vs naturally aligned 32-bit and 64-bit instructions + new more complex instructions that require cracking to regain code size (things like load/store pair).

> RISC-V defines a mechanism by which 48/64 bit instructions might be used, but currently none are actually defined

The long-instruction-SIG just started a few weeks ago, and they are working on defining 48/64-bit encodings for instructions that could be used in future RVA profiles (so with high perf implementations in mind). If you are knowledgeable about this stuff, please get involved, so they don't mess it up. (not "you" specifically, but in general)

[rwmj]

Compressed is necessary to reduce code size which is important for performance.

A bunch of vendors have done high performance server chips which support compressed (Rivos, Ventana, some Chinese vendors), so in actual reality this was only a problem for Qualcomm. And that's only because Qualcomm bought Nuvia and they wanted to do the cheap thing (minimally change the front end) rather than the right thing.

[timhh]

Of course you can make compressed work. E.g. you fetch 66 bytes instead of 64. Hell, Intel/AMD manage to make x86 fairly fast.

But it's definitely more awkward and has costs throughout the CPU.

I would be really surprised if the lower code density is worse than the improvement due to everything being nicely aligned. Especially because Qualcomm had actual data that it isn't (if you add new instructions with the extra coding space you free up).

[Taniwha]

You don't really fetch 66 bytes instead of 64, what real implementations do is read cache lines (of whatever size) and hold on to 2 bytes from the previous cache line if there was 1/2 a 32-bit instruction at the end of the previous cache line (the ISA has the 16/32-bit tag in the lower byte so you know how big an instruction will be even if you've only seen half of it)

[inkyoto]

> […] and hold on to 2 bytes from the previous cache line if there was 1/2 a 32-bit instruction at the end of the previous cache line […]

Well, and that is the worst case scenario from the performance standpoint since, if a 32-bit instruction is spans a page boundary, it will result in a page fault stalling the instruction decoder.

It might be acceptable in implementations not sensitive to such an overhead (e.g. embedded solutions) but is wholly unacceptable in high performance scenarios.

[camel-cdr]

> E.g. you fetch 66 bytes instead of 64

Not really, you would fetch fewer bytes with RVC [2, page 9], because the code density is better.

> I would be really surprised if the lower code density is worse than the improvement due to everything being nicely aligned.

This is very hard to quantify.

> Especially because Qualcomm had actual data that it isn't (if you add new instructions with the extra coding space you free up).

I've liked the back and forth slides bellow. Though I want to bring up to things regrading the Qualcomm slides:

    > [RVC] Performance benefit is modest
    > • Best case: 2-3% speedup

I recently benchmark compiling programs with a rva23 clang build and clang compiled for rva23-without-C and got a 10% performance improvement from RVC on the SpacemiT X100.

I also have no idea how they got those numbers. (not that they are wildly implausible, it's just not transparent)

    > Improving Android Code Size

In the last presentation they show how you can add a +-64M 32-bit long jump instruction to improve codesize in large binaries, like those in android.

I want to point out, that the JAL opcode has enough space left (7/8th) to encode a long jump of a same range and there is a proposal for a 32-bit +32M -12M 32-bit long jump: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/blob/zijfal/src/un...

[1] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/321/0/A%2...

[2] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/353/0/RIS...

[3] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/378/0/Res...

[4] https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-profiles/attachment/400/0/AOS...

[Joker_vD]

> RISC-V supports variable length instructions, even much longer than 32 bits, and you've just got to deal with it.

...no, not really? There is nothing like 9 byte-long MOVABS instruction of x64 that exists on RISC-V.

The main difficulty in decoding is that 32-bit instructions are not required to be 4-byte aligned, this means that naïve decoders will spend 2 cycles fetching such split instructions. It's possible to add a 4-byte ring buffer but all in all, efficiently supporting the C extension is non-trivial.

[camel-cdr]

There are two options when designing an ISA to achieve competitive code size, add variable length instructions or add more complex fixed-length instructions which require cracking (2W instructions). The other option is: maybe codesize don't matter?

For high performance implementations both decoding variable length instructions and decoding/cracking fixed-length instructions into uops, are rather analogous in terms of the work hardware needs to do.

However, I think the advantage of fixed-length instructions, is that you can do further tricks, like pre-decoding in Icache. With RVC, you can also do pre-decoding, but now you need twice the amount of pre-decoding data, unless you find other tricks.

Still, in a reasonable variable-length ISA and fixed-length ISA, the variable-length one will get better code size. There are also a lot of other things to consider, RVC is self synchronizing, cracking is challenging for decode, but also keeps the backend better fed, how more instruction starts impact branch predictors, instructions crossing cache-lines...

I benchmark compiling programs with a rva23 clang build and clang compiled for rva23-without-C and got a 10% performance improvement from RVC on the SpacemiT X100. The X100 is a 4-wide out-of-order core and afaik doesn't do anything special for RVC, except for expanding the 16-bit to 32-bit instructions.

It's hard to quantify the real impact on a CPU design, but going the fixed-width route seems to enable more optimizations (not so much the decoding it self).

[Joker_vD]

> maybe codesize don't matter?

Well, instruction cache still has limited size, and you still need to get your code into it. Paging in 512 KiB from the disk is faster than paging in 1 MiB from the disk.

> like pre-decoding in Icache.

I'm fairly certain x64 also does that?

> RVC is self synchronizing,

No, not really. You can still jump into the middle a 32-bit instruction, and it's possible it can be reinterpreted as a valid 32/16-bit instruction. Remember when people complained about how "overlapped instructions"/"hidden instruction streams" on x64 enable even more ROPs/gadgets than meets the eye? Don't worry, RISC-V has those too!

[camel-cdr]

> No, not really. You can still jump into the middle a 32-bit instruction, and it's possible it can be reinterpreted as a valid 32/16-bit instruction. Remember when people complained about how "overlapped instructions"/"hidden instruction streams" on x64 enable even more ROPs/gadgets than meets the eye? Don't worry, RISC-V has those too!

Sure, it's a probabilistic thing. Whenever you see a 2-byte block starting with 0b11, you know there is an instruction start after those 2 bytes.

When I last looked at it, I got synchronize 99% of the time, when looking at a 8-byte block. In one qemu trace I empirically got that only 626 out of 70479 8-byte blocks don't contain synchronizations.

This certainly seems like something you could exploit quite well, if you are doing things like 8+ wide decoding. (maybe have a fast path that safes one cycle of latency)

[rwmj]

RISC-V definitely does support instructions longer than 32 bits, starting at 48 bits (ie. 32 + 16), and going much longer. They are much easier to decode than x86 because the length is evident from the first byte. No ratified extension uses them now, but you're going to need to deal with them as the extension space gets more crowded. Including dealing with instructions split across cache lines and pages, and instructions aligned to 16 bits.

I'm not sure what point you're making TBH.

[Joker_vD]

My point is that fixed-length instructions are supposed to be easier to decode than variable-length ones, right?

If not, then why even bother with fitting immediates and inventing LUI/AUIPC, just have a 48-bit long LI instruction. The same goes for 64-bit, an 80-bit LI.W is still shorter than the piecemeal construction with several instructions.

If yes, then the small cores are arbitrarily given a burden of supporting variable-length instructions, supposedly efficiently: if your instruction fetch is 16-bit wide, you need two fetches to fetch a single 32-bit instruction, which sucks; if it's 32-bit wide, you need to conditionally stash the upper half for the next fetch cycle, and still prefetch yet more 32-bits because that upper half may contain only a half of a full 32-bit instruction; alternatively, you can fetch 32-bits at alternated aligned/misaligned addresses and ignore the inefficiency of throwing away re-fetched bits — again, all of this sucks.

[rwmj]

Yes, fixed-length instructions are easier to decode, but that also means a hard upper limit on the number of instructions that could ever be supported. Which is obviously a problem for a future-proof architecture.

The rationale for this and also for confining the base set to 32 bit is explained here: https://docs.riscv.org/reference/isa/v20250508/unpriv/extend...

[Joker_vD]

I've read that rationale, and it's, well, I'm not going to say it's lying, but it's insincere. By the time it was written, they already settled on 16-bit alignment, and fetching (and then decoding) 16-bit aligned 32-bit instructions is either inefficient, or hard, or requires extra circuitry (or an instruction cache).

[brucehoult]

> small cores are arbitrarily given a burden of supporting variable-length instructions

Even the smallest commercial microcontroller cores e.g. the CH32V003, support the C extension. They strip out other things, such as half the integer registers, but they keep C.

And that's in a market where you can use literally any combination of extensions you want, because the customers compile all their own code, and you just tell them what ISA string to use.

[sylware]

English is not my native language and I wrote a bit too fast the message: I wanted to say that "everything pushing forward RISC-V is good".

I code RISC-V assembly, I don't use C machine instructions (I don't even use the pseudo-instructions, ABI register names and dodge nearly all ISA extensions, I try to stick to core as much as I can). I run my code on x86_64 linux with a small interpreter written in x86_64 assembly (thx to the 'R' in RISC).

I wonder if there are some 'broad and not niche, real-life' speed benchmark numbers to show how much C machine instructions are worth.

For the moment, I see those C machine instructions more as a marketing extension to match their arm equivalent: you know, for those key deciding people who care more about the amount of features and not their contextual pertinent usage.

To say an ISA is "good" is related to some set of technical sweet spots based on compromises based on projected usages.

RVA from my point of view is mostly preparing RISC-V hardware for some level of x86_64/arm compatibility.

I wonder if there are RISC-V implementations using the latest silicon process from TSMC.

[rwmj]

Aarch64 dropped thumb instructions.

I don't think you're going to find a single benchmark on the effectiveness of compressed instructions since it really depends deeply on both the workload and the whole system. For example, memory bandwidth and cache pressure are both important for whether smaller text sizes matter, and that may depend on what else is running at the same time.

Note your assembler may be automatically compressing instructions without you asking. You'll have to disassemble the binary to find out.

[camel-cdr]

You can benchmark stuff with and without RVC. Once there is faster hardware I want to do such a comparison with a full gentoo build for both sides.

However, quantifying what the result will actually mean is nearly impossible, because you don't know what the hardware cost was.

[sylware]

Maybe the best approach is to remove C from RVA while keeping it around in the specs for niche applications where text size _really_ matters (with current silicon processes, I wonder how weird those niche applications have to be to require C). But it seems some would remove C even from the specs to free some ISA space. If arm removed thumb...

Don't worry, I would know if the assembler is producing C machine instructions, my rv64 interpreter on x86_64 does not support the C instructions at all.

[brucehoult]

You can't remove C from future RVA because a large part of the value of RVA is that each version can run all the shrink-wrapped (binary distribution) code built for the previous versions.

[sylware]

Well, I said that because based on the documents provided here, it seems there are key people considering its removal even from the specs.

From my point of view, just do like all the others: clearly deprecate it, namely say that "from RVAx, don't create new machine code with the C extension". It is like in the linux kernel, it will then be removed very far in the future. But RISC-V is all about the far future, it can only be better to fix it asap.

After reading the comments and documents provided here, I am the first to be suprised by how much doing 'performant C' is not that easy and has a significant hardware cost. "arm removing thumb" should have been a strong signal.

Again, I am coding rv64 assembly almost every day, a good part could be C-ized to shrink text size, but based on various numbers provided here, why bother, better keep the 'R' of RISC as faithfull to its goal than anything else.

[brucehoult]

> "arm removing thumb" should have been a strong signal.

I don't see any reason to think that Arm ISA designers are any more skilled and knowledgable than RISC-V ISA designers. Given the relative number of people and the amount of academic and industry expertise you'd rather expect the opposite! Retired Arm ISA designers such as Dave Jaggar who designed Thumb and Thumb2 are on record as saying that the RISC-V designers have done a fine job, and that RISC0V is the current state of the art.

When I tested my Primes benchmark on a Pi 4, the variable-length Thumb 2 version was the fastest as well as, of course, the smallest.

    11.190 sec Pi4 Cortex A72 @ 1.5 GHz T32          232 bytes  16.8 billion clocks
    12.115 sec Pi4 Cortex A72 @ 1.5 GHz A64          300 bytes  18.2 billion clocks
    12.605 sec Pi4 Cortex A72 @ 1.5 GHz A32          300 bytes  18.9 billion clocks

[flopsamjetsam]

> CLIC was awful (thankfully it has been abandoned)

Could you expand a little on what made it a bad design? I'm not much up on RISC-V.

[timhh]

Mostly the specification was just poorly written with many ambiguities. But also the design was complex, weird, invasive and IIRC not backwards compatible with standard RISC-V.