Instruction prediction based on filtering

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.

MICROFICHE APPENDIX

A microfiche appendix containing one (1) sheet and thirty-one (31) frames is included as an appendix to this application and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes. The microfiche appendix is directed to code listings containing an embodiment of the invention.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to the field of computer-instruction prediction and, in particular, to instruction prediction based on filtering.

Branch prediction, a particular type of instruction prediction, has become critical to the performance of modern pipeline microprocessors. As pipelines grow in length, instruction fetch (performed in one stage of a pipeline) moves farther away from instruction execution (performed in another stage of the pipeline). Conditional branches (also referred to as conditional jumps) are one of the few operations where instruction execution affects instruction fetch. If instruction fetch must wait for execution of a conditional branch before proceeding, considerable performance is lost due to the number of pipeline stages between the two. As a result, conditional branches are typically predicted in an instruction fetch unit as taken or not-taken with a mechanism independent of instruction execution. Based on this prediction, subsequent instructions are speculatively fetched.

However, branch prediction is often wrong. In many cases, therefore, speculative instructions predictively fetched must be “killed” and instructions from the correct path subsequently fetched as replacements. Thus, the misprediction rate of a branch predictor is a critical parameter for performance. (Another important parameter is the cost of a misprediction, which is usually related to the number of pineline stages between fetch and execution.)

FIG. 1

illustrates the general interface between a conventional branch predictor

102

and a conventional microprocessor or any other computer system in which predictor

102

may reside (referred to herein as a “host processor”

103

). Typically, branch predictor

102

resides within a host processor. However, for ease of discussion,

FIG. 1

shows predictor

102

coupled to host processor

103

. Standard control signals between predictor

102

and processor

103

, well known to those having ordinary skill in the art, are omitted for clarity of discussion.

Through the use of a program counter (not shown), host processor

103

supplies a conditional branch-instruction address or portion thereof (i.e., “BranchPC”

104

), and the predictor responds with a prediction (also referred to as a “prediction value”)

106

and some state information; i.e., StateOut

108

. This state information is associated with a particular BranchPC and includes information necessary to update predictor

102

after an associated conditional branch instruction is executed.

More specifically, upon execution of the associated conditional branch instruction (i.e., when the subject condition becomes known), processor

103

generates an actual outcome value

110

(e.g., a single bit indicating whether the branch is taken or not-taken) and returns this to predictor

102

along with StateIn

108

′ through a feedback loop

105

. StateIn

108

′ is the same information provided as StateOut

108

for the particular BranchPC

104

; this information has been maintained within processor

103

until the associated conditional branch instruction has been executed and outcome value

110

is available. Predictor

102

will use StateIn

108

′ for updating purposes if necessary. For example, StateIn

108

′ and StateOut

108

(i.e., state information) may include an address for a memory (i.e., table) within predictor

102

that is associated with the subject conditional branch instruction, and a is used to store the associated outcome value

110

within the memory. An example of a branch predictor disposed within a processor is the MIPS R10000 microprocessor created by Silicon Graphics, Inc., of Mountain View, Calif.

Methods for branch prediction are evolving rapidly because the penalty for misprediction and performance requirements for processors are both increasing. Early branch prediction simply observed that branches usually go one way or the other, and therefore predicted the current direction (i.e., taken/not-taken) of a conditional branch to be the same as its previous direction; so-called “last-direction prediction.” This method requires only one bit of storage per branch.

On a sample benchmark (i.e., the 126.gcc program of SPECint95 available from the Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation) simulating a predictor with a 4 KB table (i.e., a memory disposed within the predictor for holding predictions associated with particular conditional branch instructions), such last-direction prediction had a 15.6% misprediction rate per branch.

A simple improvement to last-direction prediction is based on the recognition that branches used to facilitate instruction loops typically operate in a predictable pattern. Such branches are typically taken many times in a row for repeated execution of the loop. Upon reaching the last iteration of the loop, however, such branch is then not-taken only once. When the loon is re-executed, this cycle is repeated. Last-direction prediction mispredicts such branches twice per loop: once at the last iteration when the branch is subsequently not-taken, and again on the first branch of the next loop, when the branch is predicted as not-taken but is in fact taken.

Such double misprediction can be prevented, however, by using two bits to encode the history for each branch. This may be carried out with a state machine that does not change the predicted direction until two branches are consecutively encountered in the other direction. On the sample benchmark, this enhancement lowered the simulated misprediction rate to 12.1%. This predictor is sometimes called “bimodal” in the literature.

Additional improvements to branch prediction include the use of global and/or local “branch history” to pick up correlations between branches. Branch history is typically represented as a finite-length shift register, with one bit for each taken/not-taken outcome shifted into the register each time a branch is executed. Local history uses a shift register per branch and exploits patterns in the same to make predictions. For example, given the pattern 10101010 (in order of execution from left to right) it seems appropriate to predict that the next branch will be taken (represented by a logic one). Global history, on the other hand, uses a single shift register for all branches and is thus a superset of local history.

A variety of methods have been suggested for utilizing history in branch prediction. Two representative methods for local and global history are called “PAG” and “GSHARE,” respectively. These methods are further described in one or more of the following: Yeh, et al., “A Comparison of Dynamic Branch Predictors That Use Two Levels of Branch History,”

The

20

th Annual International Symposium on Commuter Architecture,

pp. 257-266, IEEE Computer Society Press (May 16-19, 1993); Yeh, et al., “Alternative Implementations of Two-Level Adoptive Branch Predictions,”

The

19

th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture,

pp. 124-134, Association for Computing Machinery (May 19-21, 1992); and S. McFarling, “Combining Branch Predictors,”

WRL Technical Note TN

-36, Digital Equipment Corp. (1993) (“McFarling”), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

On the sample benchmark, PAG and GSHARE lowered the simulated misprediction on rate to 10.3% and 8.6%, respectively. In general, global history appears to be better than local history because the history storage is only a few bytes, leaving more storage for predictions.

A further improvement to branch prediction is achieved by combining two different predictors into a single branch prediction system, as described in McFarling. The combined-predictor system of McFarling runs two branch predictors in parallel (i.e., bimodal and GSHARE), measures which one is better for a particular conditional branch, and chooses the prediction of that predictor. On the sample benchmark, a combined-predictor system using bimodal and GSHARE achieved a simulated mispredict rate of 7.5%.

Another variation to branch prediction is suggested in E. Jacobsen, et al., “Assigning Confidence to Conditional Branch Prediction,”

Proceedings of the

29

th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture,

IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 142-152 (Dec. 2-4, 1996) (“Jacobsen”), which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirely for all purposes. Jacobsen describes a method for determining a “confidence level” for a given branch prediction. Jacobsen suggests that confidence signals may be used, for example, to select a prediction in a system that uses more than one predictor.

One suggested confidence-level measure is embodied in a resetting counter which increments on each correct prediction (but stops at its maximum value), and is reset to zero on a misprediction. (This resetting counter may be a saturating counter; i.e., one that does not decrement cast zero nor increment past its maximum value.) Larger counter values indicate greater confidence in a prediction. Exemplary pseudocode for this confidence-level measure is provided in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1

Confidence:

high confidence if count at

conf − count = countMax

maximum

Update:

if actual = prediction then

if count < countMax then

increment count if correct,

count − count + 1

saturate at maximum

endif

else

count − 0

reset count if incorrect

endif

The foregoing discussion is directed primarily to maintaining a prediction state or history per branch instruction. In practice, however, such information is kept in fixed size memories (i.e., “tables”). The information is typically untagged, and so prediction data for multiple conditional branches often share the same location in the tables undetected. When this happens, it usually increases the misprediction rate. The more advanced methods store more information per branch, and so there is a tension between the reduction in the mispredict rate from the additional information and the increase in the mispredict rate due to increased sharing.

A combined predictor, as described in McFarling, that chooses between GSHARE and bimodal can take advantage of the fact that sometimes history helps to predict a given branch, and sometimes history is not relevant and may actually be harmful. Such predictor operates by running both predictors in parallel and choosing the better one. Selection criteria for choosing an acceptable prediction may be a confidence level. In such a situation, however, both predictors (and the chooser) consume costly table space, even when the prediction of one predictor or the ocher is almost never used for certain branches. The extra table space consumed by the unused predictor increases false sharing (i.e., the use of a prediction for one branch instruction by another), and thus reduces accuracy.

Moreover, selection criteria based solely on a confidence level may be inadequate when, for example, more than one predictor is sufficiently confident. There is a need for distinguishing between multiple predictor alternatives that may be uniformly deemed sufficiently confident (and therefore acceptable).

Accordingly, it would be desirable to have a predictor system and method that efficiently uses table space for servicing instructions that utilize prediction information, such as conditional branches, to reduce false sharing and thereby increase prediction accuracy. Further, it would be desirable to have a prediction system that distinguishes among a plurality of choices that are each deemed acceptable through a confidence level or other acceptance-testing mechanism.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention provides method and apparatus for generating predictions that in accordance with at least one embodiment efficiently use table space for servicing conditional instructions. Further, the invention provides a system that in accordance with at least another embodiment prioritizes and thereby distinguishes predictions, each of which may be deemed equally acceptable to use through a confidence level or any other acceptance-testing mechanism.

In a first embodiment, a system is provided that generates a prediction for a given situation. This system includes a plurality of predictors generating a plurality of prediction values for the given situation, means for processing said plurality of prediction values to produce the prediction, and a feedback loop coupled to the plurality or predictors for updating only a portion of the predictors bases upon an actual outcome of the given situation.

In another embodiment, a method is provided that generates a prediction for a given instruction. This method includes the steps of providing a plurality of predictors for receiving address information of the instruction and producing a prediction value by at least one predictor of the plurality of predictors. Further, this method also includes processing the prediction value to generate the prediction, and updating only a portion of the predictors with actual outcome information provided from execution of the given instruction.

In yet another embodiment, a predictor system is provided that generates a desired prediction for a given instruction. This system includes a plurality of predictors generating a plurality of predictions, each predictor being assigned a priority level and at least one predictor being operable to indicate acceptability of its prediction. Coupled to the plurality of predictors is a selection circuit which selects the desired prediction from a desired predictor. In accordance with this system, the desired predictor is (1) a first predictor when such predictor indicates acceptability of its prediction and has a highest assigned priority level among any other predictor of the plurality or predictors that also indicates acceptability of its respective prediction; and (2) a second predictor when none of the plurality of predictors indicates acceptability of its prediction, this second predictor having a lowest assigned priority level.

Existing host processors are easily modified to incorporate the predictor system of the present invention. Moreover, such predictor system accommodates further enhancements to the host processor such as trace caches (which may be controlled by confidence levels) at relatively low cost.

A further understanding of the nature and advantages of the invention may be realized by reference to the remaining portions of the specification and drawings. Like reference numbers in the drawings indicate identical or functionally similar elements.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1

illustrates the general interface between a conventional branch predictor and a conventional host processor.

FIG. 2

is a block diagram illustrating the conceptual flow of conditional branch instructions through a branch predictor system using filtering in accordance with the principles of the invention.

FIG. 3A

is a block diagram of an embodiment of a branch predictor system using parallel-accessed predictors and filtering in accordance with the principles of the invention.

FIG. 3B

is a flow chart of a method for generating a desired prediction for a given branch instruction in accordance with the principles of the invention.

FIG. 4

is a block diagram or a preferred embodiment of a branch predictor system using filtering in accordance with the principles of the invention.

FIG. 5

is a block diagram of a global-history shift register used in the predictor system or FIG.

4

.

FIG. 6

is a block diagram of a hash unit used the predictor system of FIG.

4

.

FIG. 7

is a block diagram of a first update circuit used in the predictor system of FIG.

4

.

FIG. 8

is a block diagram or a second update circuit used in the predictor system of FIG.

4

.

FIG. 9

illustrates state output signals generated by the predictor system or FIG.

4

.

FIG. 10

illustrates state input signals received by the predictor system of FIG.

4

.

FIG. 11

illustrates trace-driven simulation results from a number of predictors and predictor systems.

FIG. 12

is a simplified block diagram of a host processor that utilizes the predictor system of FIG.

4

.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS

The following embodiments are directed to systems and methods servicing conditional branch instructions. However, the present invention is applicable to any operation or situation where prediction information may be used.

A. System

200

FIG. 2

is a block diagram illustrating how conditional branch instructions conceptually flow through a branch predictor system

200

that uses filtering in accordance with the principles of the present invention. Like predictor

102

of

FIG. 1

, system

200

interfaces with a conventional host processor (not shown). In accordance with conventional branch prediction operation, system

200

supplies a prediction (also referred to as a “prediction value ”) and state information to the host processor to enable the processor to predict a bending, conditional branch instruction. In response, the processor supplies an actual outcome value (indicating whether a branch is taken or not-taken) and state information to enable the predictor system to update if necessary.

As shown in

FIG. 2

, a number of individual constituent predictors

202

,

204

,

205

and

206

are serially disposed within system

200

. Each constituent predictor may be constructed from a conventional branch predictor modified to generate confidence levels in accordance with methodologies described herein. Accordingly, each predictor generates a branch prediction “P” and confidence level “C” for a received BranchPC. Predictors

202

-

206

are hierarchically arranged in a gradually decreasing “priority level” from left to right. The priority level assigned to each predictor defines the relative preference of using a particular predictor among all others in system

200

, subject to satisfying additional criteria (i.e., confidence level) as described below.

In operation, the prediction for a given branch instruction will be provided by system

200

from a predictor with the highest priority that has a confidence level satisfying a predetermined threshold value (“PTV”). A confidence level may “satisfy” PTV by, for example, (1) having a value that is equal to PTV, 2) having a value that is greater than or equal to PTV or 3) having a value that satisfies any other test applied to a given situation. Should a confidence level “satisfy” PTV, the associated prediction is considered acceptable for use; although its relative desirability (with respect to output from other predictors) is dependent upon the priority level of the associated predictor.

Should no confidence level satisfy PTV for the given branch, a prediction from the predictor of lowest priority shall be used by default. Accordingly, referring to system

200

of

FIG. 2

, the number of branch instructions available for prediction by a given predictor from left to right likely decreases in accordance with decreasing priority levels. Predictor

202

, having the highest priority, will conceptually consider all (ice., N) branches in a given application and service those for which it is sufficiently confident; i.e., the confidence level C of the predictor for the branch instruction being considered satisfies a PTV.

However, predictor

204

, having a lower priority, will conceptually consider only those branches not serviced by preceding predictor

202

(i.e., N-N

1

). Again, this predictor will only service those branch instructions for which it is sufficiently confident. Further, predictor

206

, having the lowest priority, will conceptually consider only those branches not serviced by any preceding predictor. This predictor will service all branch instructions regardless of the corresponding confidence level. As such, the series of predictors

202

-

205

“filters” branch instructions using confidence and priority levels to select a predictor of highest possible priority for any given instruction. Any residual is serviced by predictor

206

. The use of predictors to selectively service branch instructions based on confidence and priority levels is referred to herein as “branch-prediction filtering.”

Referring again to

FIG. 2

, first predictor

202

yields a prediction “P

1

” and a prediction confidence level “C

1

” for a given branch instruction. If C

1

satisfies a PTV (e.g., if C

1

is greater than or equal to PTV), predictor

202

is desired for supplying a prediction. Accordingly, P

1

is selected and forwarded to the host processor to predict the given branch, and the remaining downstream predictors are ignored. However, if C

1

does not satisfy PTV (e.g., C

1

is less than PTV), the next predictor

204

in the chain is evaluated for selection and use. Conceptually, this serial process continues down the chain or predictors until either a sufficiently high confidence level is found, or the final predictor (i.e., predictor

206

) is reached. If the final predictor is reached, this predictor becomes desired for supplying a prediction and the associated prediction “Pn” is selected for the given branch regardless of the confidence level “Cn”.

Prediction methodology applied to system

200

of is summarized in the pseudocode of Table 2.

TABLE 2

Prediction Methodology.

pred1, conf1, state1 - Predictor1 (BranchPC)

pred2, conf2, state2 - Predictor2 (BranchPC)

. . .

predN, confN, stateN - PredictorN (BranchPC)

if conf1 then

pred − pred1

elseif conf2 then

pred − pred2

. . .

else

pred − predN

endif

Referring to the pseudocode in Table 2, predictions (“pred#”), confidence levels (“conf#”), and state information (“state#”) variables for each predictor stage are initially assigned values in parallel. Beginning with confidence level C

1

(“conf1”), the confidence level of each predictor is evaluated to determine whether it satisfies (i.e., is greater than or equal to) the PTV. If the test is successful, the associated predictor is chosen and the predictor-specific prediction value (“pred#”) is output as a system-level output to the host processor. Otherwise, the next lower predictor in priority is evaluated (pred#1) Ultimately, if no confidence level satisfies the PTV, then final predictor

206

(“predN”) is selected by default.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, confidence level Cn of last predictor

206

need not be measured since the prediction value Pn generated by this unit is utilized by default if no other predictor satisfies PTV. However, it may still be desirable to determine Cn for purposes other than selecting a predictor. For example, a supporting host computer may be configured to allow for the fetching of one or two instruction paths of a given conditional branch instruction. A confidence-level criteria may be used to trigger the fetching of the two paths, as described in Jacobsen.

As discussed above, system

200

provides for a hierarchical filtering operation where a given conditional branch instruction passes from one predictor to the next (moving downward in priority) until a predictor with a sufficiently high confidence level (Cx) is encountered or last predictor

206

is reached. Such filtering of branch instructions provides a mechanism for control over prediction operations. For example, a predictor type (e.g., last-direction, GSHARE, etc.) likely to have a sufficiently high confidence level to service a large volume of branch instructions or a particular type/class of instructions may be strategically placed upstream in system

200

. Such positioning may help prevent the passing of certain branch instructions to predictors downstream where such instructions might disrupt or introduce algorithmically undesirable branches for a particular prediction scheme in the downstream stages.

Moreover, system

200

is highly modular and therefore easily expandable with additional stages. This modularity may be utilized to include, for example, additional predictors that service specific conditional branch instructions. Such specialty predictors may be assigned lower priority assuming the specific conditional branch instructions targeted by these predictors are unlikely to be serviced by predictors placed upstream.

Referring again to

FIG. 1

, after the actual outcome value

110

of a conditional branch instruction is determined, this information (and supporting state information

108

) is returned to predictor

102

through feedback loop

105

for any necessary updating (in accordance with the prediction method employed by this predictor). This updating operation is also required by the predictors of system

200

of FIG.

2

.

Referring to

FIG. 2

, if predictor

202

(i.e., the predictor having the highest priority) is selected to carry out a prediction operation, an actual outcome value and state information (provided by a host processor) is conceptually forwarded only to predictor

202

for updating purposes. However, if a predictor of lower priority (e.g.,

204

or

206

) is selected for prediction operations, then any predictor residing upstream (i.e., having higher priority) of this selected predictor as well as the selected predictor itself are conceptually provided with an actual outcome value and associated state information or updating (if necessary). Each predictor will receive the same actual outcome value (i.e., value

110

of FIG.

1

). However, individualized state information associated with each predictor will be returned to the predictor from which it originated. As discussed below, this state information may include addresses for table locations disposed within each predictor that the actual outcome value is to be placed.

Update methodology applied to branch predictor system

200

of

FIG. 2

is illustrated the pseudocode of Table 3.

TABLE 3

Update Methodology.

Update1 (actual, state1)

if not conf1 then

Update2 (actual, state2)

if not conf2 then

Update3 (actual, state3)

. . .

if not confN − 1 then

UpdateN (actual, stateN)

endif

. . .

endif

endif

Referring to Table 3, update methodology begins with the update of predictor

202

(i.e., “Update1”) via subroutine Update

1

. Actual outcome value (“actual”) and state information associated with predictor

202

(“state1) are returned to predictor

202

for updating necessary. If confidence level C

1

(“conf1”) did not satisfy the PTV for system

200

,the next predictor

204

is also updated via subroutine Update

2

. This process continues until a predictor is reached whose confidence level satisfied the PTV or upon reaching final predictor

206

. Significantly, as noted above, predictors assigned lower priority than the selected-predictor are not updated during this process.

A selected predictor (i.e., a predictor whose prediction is selected to carry out a branch prediction operation) and only those predictors residing upstream of the selected predictor (i.e., those predictors having a higher priority level) utilize update information in response to execution of a given conditional branch instruction. Accordingly, table space in predictors located downstream of a selected predictor is not wasted on actual outcome values generated by branch instructions serviced at higher priority predictors. Therefore, predictors of lower priority are disposed to be more application specific to the particular branch instructions they service since update information comes predominantly from these instructions. In other words, by reducing the number of branch instructions updating downstream predictors, there is less data in the tables of these predictors and therefore less likelihood of false sharing.

System

200

graphically illustrates branch prediction filtering through serial operation. Although this provides a convenient model to describe the conceptual flow and processing of conditional branch instructions, it is preferred that predictors be accessed in parallel.

FIGS. 3A and 4

illustrate branch predictor systems having such parallel-accessed predictors.

B. System

300

FIG. 3A

is a block diagram or an embodiment of a branch predictor system

300

using parallel-accessed predictors and filtering in accordance with the principles of the present invention. The data inputs from a conventional host processor

103

(i.e., BranchPC

104

, StateIn

316

′ and actual outcome value

110

) and outputs to host processor

103

(i.e., StateOut

316

and PredictOut

313

) convey the same information as the individual constituent predictors would otherwise require and generate, respectively, when interfacing with a host processor. Standard control signals from processor

103

, well known to those having ordinary skill in the art, are not shown. System

300

is preferably disposed within host processor

103

, but for ease of discussion

FIG. 3A

shows system

300

coupled to processor

103

.

Referring to

FIG. 3A

, a program counter

317

is coupled in parallel to several predictors

302

-

308

. Similarly, input lines

350

,

352

from processor

103

conveying StateIn

316

′ and actual outcome value

110

, respectively, are coupled in parallel to predictors

302

-

308

. Lines

350

,

352

make up a feedback loop

354

. Each predictor generates state information (“S”) and a prediction (“P”, also referred to as a “prediction value”) from any well-known branch prediction method (e.g., last-direction, bimodal, PAG, GSHARE, etc.). Additionally, each predictor except for final predictor

308

generates a confidence level indicator (“CI”) indicating whether the confidence level (“C”) of that particular predictor satisfies the PTV for system

300

(“system

300

PTV”) and therefore the associated prediction is acceptable to use. Computation of confidence level may be carried out, for example, in accordance with the pseudo-code described above in Table 1 or below in Table 5. Determination of whether a confidence level satisfies a PTV (i.e., generation of a CI within each predictor) may be carried out with discrete logic (e.g., like gate

480

of FIG.

4

), a conventional comparator or any like device as would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art. (As noted above, although a prediction may be considered acceptable for use by its confidence level, its relative desirability—with respect to output from other predictors—is dependent upon the priority level of the associated predictor.)

If the confidence level C for a particular predictor is greater than or equal to system

300

PTV, then the associated CI is output as a logic high or one indicating acceptability of its associated prediction. Alternatively, if such confidence level C is less than system

300

PTV, the associated CI is output as a logic low or zero indicating unacceptability of its prediction. As an alternative embodiment, each predictor may be assigned an individual predetermined threshold value which must be satisfied to output a logic high CI. As an additional alternative, each processor may employ a different method of computing a confidence level. As a further alternative, criteria other than a confidence level may be used to indicate acceptability of a particular prediction.

Predictions P

1

-P

n

from predictors

302

-

308

, respectively, are forwarded to data inputs of multiplexer

312

. Confidence level indicators CI

1

-CI

n−1

from predictors

302

-

306

, respectively, are forwarded to data inputs D

1

-D

n−1

of priority encoder

310

. The output of encoder

310

(Q

1

,Q

0

) is forwarded to the selection input of multiplexer

312

. Through the processing of multiplexer

312

and encoder

310

(as described below) a collection of predictions (i.e., P

1

-P

n

) are reduced to a single value that is output to Processor

103

. In brief, multiplexer

312

and encoder

310

select the most desirable prediction based on confidence-level and priority criteria.

Referring again to

FIG. 3A

, state information S

1

-S

n

from predictors

302

-

308

is forwarded to state output device

315

, which simply outputs S

1

-S

n

in concatenated form to host microprocessor

103

as StateOut

316

. Device

315

may be implemented with conventional logic, as would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art. This information is ultimately returned to system

300

as StateIn

316

′ for updating predictors

302

-

308

, respectively.

More specifically, state information S

1

-S

n

, which is associated with a particular prediction and conditional branch instruction, is temporarily maintained in host processor

103

after the associated prediction is generated and ultimately returned to predictor system

300

at the time that an actual outcome value

110

is generated by the host processor or purposes of updating the predictor stages. State information may, for example, identify a location within a table of a predictor stage that is to receive actual outcome value

110

as an update. As shown in

FIG. 1

, the use of state information for performing updates to branch predictors is a conventional operation well known to those having ordinary skill in the art. System

300

of

FIG. 3A

simply concatenates this information to facilitate more than one predictor; i.e., forming a state information vector. Each predictor

302

-

308

extracts information with which it is associated when this vector is returned to system

300

as StateIn

316

′.

Priority encoder

310

receives confidence level indicators CI

1

-CI

n−1

from predictors

302

-

306

and processes the signals to effect a filtering result. Priority encoders are well-Knwon devices. Encoder

310

may be designed to function as any conventional encoder such as the MC10H165 available from Motorola, Inc. A truth table for the operation or encoder

310

is provided Table 4 below, where “L” is a logic low or zero (0), “H” is logic high so one (1) and “X” is a Don't Care. The “L” entries in Table 2 represent logic low CIs which signify confidence levels that do not satisfy (e.g., are less than) system

300

PTV. Conversely, the “H” entries in Table 4 represent logic high CIs which signify confidence levels that satisfy (e.g., are greater than or equal to) system

300

PTV.

TABLE 4

Truth Table for Encoder 310

Stage

D1

D2

Dn − 1

Q

1

Q

0

Selected

L

L

L

0

0

n

H

X

X

0

1

1

L

H

X

1

0

2

L

L

H

1

1

n − 1

As Table 4 illustrates, if no predictor

302

-

306

has a confidence level C that satisfies system

300

PTV (i.e., D

1

=D

2

=D

n−1

=L), then predictor

308

is desired as a prediction source. Accordingly, encoder

310

shall select prediction P

n

of predictor

308

by forwarding an address of 0 (i.e., Q

1

=0,Q

0

=0) to multiplexer

312

and thereby output P

n

as PredictOut

313

. (PredictOut

313

is forwarded to a fetch unit (not shown) within host processor

103

.) Alternatively, if any of predictors

302

-

306

has a confidence level that satisfies system

300

PTV, then one of those predictors shall be selected for providing PredictOut

313

.

Referring to Table 4 and

FIG. 3A

, predictor

302

is assigned highest priority by encoder

310

. If the confidence level of predictor

302

(C

1

) satisfies system

300

PTV (i.e., C

1

is greater than or equal to system

300

PTV), then predictor

302

is desired as a prediction source regardless of the confidence levels or predictors

304

and

306

. Accordingly, predictor

302

outputs a logic high CI

1

which is received at input D

1

of encoder

310

. As a result encoder

310

shall select prediction P

1

of stage

302

by forwarding an address of decimal 1 (i.e., Q

1

=0,Q

0

=1) to multiplexer

312

and thereby output P

1

as PredictOut

313

. Alternatively, if confidence level indicator CI

1

is a logic low (i.e., C

1

is less than system

300

PTV), and confidence level indicator CI

2

is a logic high (i.e., the confidence level of predictor

304

, C

2

, is greater than or equal to system

300

PTV), then predictor

304

is desired regardless of the value of confidence level indicator CI

n−1

. Accordingly, encoder

310

shall select prediction P

2

by forwarding an address of decimal 2 (i.e., Q

1

32 32 1,Q

0

=0) to multiplexer

312

and thereby output P

2

as PredictOut

313

.

The foregoing description applies equally to selecting predictor

306

. Confidence level indicators necessary to select the output of predictor

306

for a particular branch instruction is shown in row 4 of Table 4. Should system

300

include a greater number of non-final predictors (i.e., more than

302

-

306

), then additional confidence level indicators “CI” would be provided to encoder

310

. The values of these additional confidence level indicators follow the patterns set out in Table 4 to select predictors identified in this table; i.e., these additional values (between CI

2

and CI

n−1

) would be L, X, X and L to select predictors

308

,

302

,

304

and

306

, respectively.

As described above, selection of a branch prediction (i.e., P

1

-P

n

) within system

300

results in the output of that prediction (i.e., PredictOut

313

) and associated state information (i.e., StateOut

316

) to host processor

103

. Upon execution of the associated conditional branch instruction by execution unit

319

in processor

103

, the actual outcome value

110

(e.g., a single bit indicating whether the branch is taken or not-taken) resulting from such execution is returned to predictors

302

-

308

accompanied by the previously output state information (StateOut

316

) referred to now as StateIn

316

′. This state information is necessary to carry out update operations as described below.

Like system

200

, update operations are performed only on the predictor selected to provide a prediction and any predictor of higher priority. Predictors of lower priority are not updated. Referring to

FIG. 3A

, actual outcome value

110

and associated state information for each predictor

302

-

308

are provided in parallel via feedback loop

354

to predictors

302

-

308

. As described above in connection with system

200

, eliminating the need to update predictors having lower priority reduces the load on these predictors (since less data is being retained) and, therefore, reduces the likelihood of false sharing.

Referring to

FIG. 3B

, flow chart

370

describes a method for generating a desired prediction for a given branch instruction according to the principles of the present invention. In block

371

, a plurality of predictors are provided. These may be non-final predictors

302

-

306

and a final predictor

308

, as shown in FIG.

3

A. Next, these predictors are assigned priority levels in accordance with block

372

. Priority assignment may be carried out through digital hardware, such as by coupling each predictor to a specific input of an encoder as shown in FIG.

3

A. Any other method for assigning relational identifiers to components may also be used (e.g., software or firmware control).

Pursuant to block

21

373

, an address (i.e., a PC value) for a given conditional branch instruction is provided to each predictor to initiate processing. In block

374

, branch-prediction processing ensues; i.e., the generation of branch predictions and confidence levels at each predictor except, perhaps, the final predictor. As noted above, the generation of a confidence level at the final predictor is unnecessary to carry out the filtering operation of the present invention.

In decisional block

376

, a determination is made as to whether any confidence level generated in block

374

satisfies the associated PTV and is therefore acceptable to use (subject to priority hierarchy). Satisfaction of a PTV is a design parameter unique to a particular system. A PTV may be satisfied, for example, if a confidence level is greater than or equal to the value of the PTV. Of course, any other comparative test may be applied. In an alterative embodiment, each predictor may have an individual PTV. If one or more predictors provide confidence levels that satisfy the associated PTV, the predictor with the highest priority level is selected as the desired predictor with the desired prediction pursuant to block

378

.

Alternatively, if no predictor has a confidence level that satisfies the PTV, then the final predictor (e.g., predictor

308

of

FIG. 3A

) is selected by default as the desired predictor having the desired prediction, in accordance with block

380

.

After execution of the predicted branch instruction, the predictors are selectively updated pursuant to block

382

. Specifically, the desired predictor providing the desired prediction and every predictor having a higher priority than the desired predictor is subject to updating where necessary. Conversely, predictors with priorities lower than the desired predictor are rot updated with new prediction values.

C. System

400

FIG. 4

illustrates a preferred embodiment of the present invention in the form of a branch predictor system

400

. Like systems

200

and

300

, predictor system

400

preferable resides within a conventional host processor which provides both data and control signals to the system. A simplified block diagram of a host processor

1200

supporting system

400

is shown in FIG.

12

and described below. As in the previous discussions, “high” and “low” signals in system

400

are logic ones and zeros, respectively.

Referring again to

FIG. 4

, system

400

includes a first constituent predictor

402

and final constituent predictor

452

employing last-direction prediction and GSHARE prediction, respectively. predictor

402

generates a confidence level “Stat1Out.C”, a prediction (also referred to as a prediction value) “State1Out.P” and a lookup table address “State1Out.A” for the confidence level and prediction. Similarly, predictor

452

generates a prediction “State2Out.P” and a lookup table address “State2Out.A” for its prediction.

As shown in

FIG. 4

, system

400

includes AND gate

480

coupled to stage

402

.(As an alternative embodiment, gate

480

may be disposed within predictor

402

.) This gate receives confidence level “State1Out.C” and outputs a control signal to multiplexer

482

. Gate

480

and multiplexer

482

collectively function as a selection circuit (e.g., like encoder

310

and multiplexer

312

of FIG.

3

A). Additionally, gate

480

functions as a “PTV tester,” generating a high signal when confidence level “State1Out.C” satisfies the PTV for system

400

(i.e., a decimal 7 in this embodiment) indicating acceptability of the associated prediction value, and a low signal otherwise. (As noted above, although a prediction may be considered acceptable for use, its relative desirability (with respect to output from other predictors) is dependent upon the priority level of the associated predictor.) The data inputs to multiplexer

482

are prediction “State1Out.P” l from predictor

402

and prediction “state2Out.P” from predictor

452

. Based upon the control signal generated by gate

480

, a prediction value from one of these two predictors is selected as the system-level prediction “PredictOut” for a given branch instruction.

1. Predictor Stare

402

Predictor

402

includes lookup table

404

(e.g., a 4096×4 RAM) whose data input is coupled to update circuit

406

,address input (“A”) is Coupled to multiplexer

412

and write enable input (“WE”) is coupled to END gate

414

. Circuit

406

and AND gate

414

are further coupled to the output of exclusive-OR gate

410

. In addition, multiplexer

412

receives input from a hash unit

408

for prediction operation, as described below.

Inputs to predictor

402

include state inputs (“State1In.C” to update circuit

406

, “State1In.P” to exclusive-OR gate

410

and “State1In.A” to multiplexer

412

), actual outcome value

110

to gate

410

and circuit

406

, program counter value (“PC value”) to hash unit

408

and a branch execution signal “ExeBr” to AND gate

414

. Input PC value is used to carry out a current branch prediction operation. The remaining inputs identified above are used for updating purposes.

During branch prediction operation of a given branch instruction, predictor

402

inputs a 62-bit PC value which is reduced to a 12-bit. tale address “BranchPC1” through hash unit

408

. Unit

408

performs a simple masking function that allows bits [

14

:

3

] of PC value [

63

:

2

] to pass to address input A of table

404

through multiplexer

412

. Table

404

functions as a last-direction predictor. Each entry of this table includes a 1-bit prediction and 3-bit confidence level which are associated with one or more branch instructions through “BranchcPC1”. More specifically, each conditional branch instruction is associated with a unique PC value. Those branch instructions having the same subset of bits making up “BranchPC1” will access the same location in Table

404

. During branch prediction, the entry in Table

404

accessed by “BranchPC1” is output from predictor

402

and processed as described below.

During update operations for a previously-predicted branch instruction, predictor

402

receives input from two primary sources the predictor itself and the host processor. Input signals from predictor

402

itself include a confidence level “State1In.C”, stage-specific prediction “State1In.P”, and a corresponding table address “State1In.A”. (This state information was originally output by predictor

402

during the prediction operation for the previously-predicted branch instruction as “State1Out.C”, “State1Out.P” and “State1Out.A”, respectively.) These values have been maintained by the host processor while the previously-predicted branch instruction was processed and are returned to stage

402

several clock cycles later to coincide with the receipt of actual outcome value

110

generated by the host processor (upon execution of the previously-predicted branch instruction) for updating purposes.

In addition to value

110

, host processor provides predictor

402

with signal “ExeBr” from an execution unit (not shown) indicating the successful execution of the previously-predicted branch instruction. In both stages

402

and

452

, signal ExeBr functions as a “valid” signal for state information

Referring to

FIG. 4

, prediction “State1In.” and actual outcome value

110

are exclusively-ORed by gate

410

to produce a mispredict signal “MisPR1”. When this signal is high, the inputs to gate

410

are different indicating the original prediction of predictor

402

for the previously-predicted branch instruction was incorrect. Signals “MisPr1” and “ExeBr” are forwarded to AND gate

414

. If both signals are high, Table

404

is enabled via gate

414

to update an entry. Moreover, a high input from gate

414

is also used to allow address “State1In.A” to pass through multiplexer

412

(i.e., the corresponding table address of the previously-predicted branch instruction) to address input A of Table

404

. The update to Table

404

for the previously-predicted branch instruction is provided by update circuit

405

.

Referring to

FIGS. 4 and 7

, update circuit

406

inputs confidence level “State1In.C”, “MisPr1” and actual outcome

110

and outputs a 4-bit signal that contains an updated 3-bit confidence level and a single bit representing actual outcome

110

. As illustrated in

FIG. 7

, outcome value

110

simply passes through update circuit

406

. However, the updated 3-bit confidence level is a product of update-C circuit

702

. The functionality of circuit

702

is illustrated in the pseudocode of Table 5 and Truth Table of Table 6, which define the operation of an asymmetric saturating counter.

TABLE 5

Confidence:

conf − count = countMax

Update:

if actual = prediction then

if count < countMax then

count − count + 1

endif

else

if count > countDecrement then

count − count − countDecrement

else

count − 0

endif

endif

Referring to the pseudocode in Table 5, a predetermined threshold value (“PTV”) is defined as CountMax which, in this embodiment, is binary 111 (i.e., decimal 7). Further, the variable “countDecrement” in this embodiment is a decimal 4.

As the code in Table 5 illustrates, if actual outcome

110

(“actual”) provided by the host processor matches prediction “State1In.P” (“prediction”; originally provided by Table

404

as “State1Out.P”), and if the current confidence level “State1In.C” (“count”) is less than 7, then “State1In.C” is incremented by 1. Further, if there is a match but confidence level “State1In.C” equals 7, then “State1In.C” remains unchanged.

However, if there is no match between actual outcome

110

and prediction “State1In.P”, and the confidence level “State1In.C” is greater than the variable countDecrement, then confidence level “State1In.C” is decremented by countDecrement. Further, if there is no match and confidence level “State1In.C” is less than or equal to countDecrement, then the confidence level is returned to zero for that entry in Table

404

. Implementation of this logic in the form of a Truth Table is provided in Table 6. Any conventional circuitry or device (such as a state machine) may be used to carry out the logic defined by Table 6.

TABLE 6

Truth Table for Update Circuit 406

MisPr1

State1In.C

Update C

0

0 0 0

0 0 1

0

0 0 1

0 1 0

0

0 1 0

0 1 1

0

0 1 1

1 0 0

0

1 0 0

1 0 1

0

1 0 1

1 1 0

0

1 1 0

1 1 1

0

1 1 1

1 1 1

1

0 0 0

0 0 0

1

0 0 1

0 0 0

1

0 1 0

0 0 0

1

0 1 1

0 0 0

1

1 0 0

0 0 0

1

1 0 1

0 0 1

1

1 1 0

0 1 0

1

1 1 1

0 1 1

2. Predictor Stage

452

Referring again to

FIG. 4

predictor

452

functions like a GSHARE predictor (as described in McFarling) with a one-bit saturating counter and fourteen-bit global-history register. Specifically, predictor

452

includes a lookup table

454

(e.g., a 16384×1 RAM) whose data input is coupled to update circuit

456

, address input (“A”) is coupled to multiplexer

462

, and write enable input (“WE”) is coupled to AND gate

464

. Multiplexer

462

receives input from a hash unit

458

which, in turn, receives input “State2Out.GHIST” from a global history register

460

. In addition, AND gate

464

receives input from NAND gate

468

and exclusive-OR gate

470

, as described below.

Inputs to predictor

452

include state inputs (“State2In.P” to circuit

456

, “State2In.A” so multiplexer

462

, “State1In.C” to NAND gate

468

, “State2In.P” to exclusive-OR gate

470

, “State2In.GHIST” to register

460

and “PredictOut” to register

460

(via latch

506

as shown in FIG.

5

)), actual outcome value

110

to gate

470

, PC value to hash unit

458

and the branch execution signal “ExeBr” to AND gate

464

. Inputs SC value and “PredictOut” are used to carry out a current branch prediction operation. The remaining inputs identified above are used for updating purposes.

During branch prediction operation of a given branch instruction, predictor

452

inputs a 62-bit PC value which is reduced to a 14-bit table address by hash unit

458

. Referring to

FIG. 6

, unit

458

performs a simple masking function in a mask circuit

602

that allows bits [

16

:

3

] of PC value [

63

:

2

] to pass to an exclusive-OR gate

604

. The second input to gate

504

is global history word “State2Out.GHIST”. This word is generated from the parallel output (“PO”) of global history register

460

, as shown in FIG.

5

.

Returning to

FIG. 4

, predictor

452

operates in accordance with a GSHARE predictor having a one-bit saturation counter and fourteen-bit register. Upon fetching a branch instruction, hash unit

458

generates an address “State2Out.A” for lookup table

454

based upon the logical combination (i.e., exclusive-OR) of global history word “State2Out.GHIST” and bits [

16

:

3

] of PC value (i.e., “BranchPC2”). In response to this address, table

454

outputs a single-bit prediction “State2Out.P” which, as shown in

FIG. 4

, is forwarded to multiplexer

482

. Signal “State2Out.P” represents a last-direction prediction. The prediction selected by multiplexer

482

(“PredictOut”) is returned to shift register

460

via latch

506

(

FIG. 5

) and becomes part of global history word “State2Out.GHIST” through shirt-in input “SI” upon receipt of a “FetchBr” signal (indicating the subject branch instruction has been fetched and decoded) from the host processor.

During update operations for a previously-predicted branch instruction, predictor

452

receives input from our primary sources predictors

452

,

402

, the host processor and system

400

. Input signals from predictor

452

include stage-specific prediction “State2In.P,” a corresponding table address “State2In.A” and global history word “State2In.GHIST”. Input signal from system

400

includes PredictIn. (This state information was originally output by predictor

452

and system

400

during the prediction operation for the previously-predicted branch instruction as “State2Out.P”, “State2Out.A”, “State2Out.GHIST” and “PredictOut”, respectively.) Like predictor

402

, these values have been maintained by the host processor while the previously-predicted branch instruction was processed and are returned to predictor

452

several clock cycles later to coincide with the receipt of actual outcome value

110

generated by the host processor (upon execution of the previously-predicted branch instruction) for up dating purposes.

In addition to value

110

, host processor provides predictor

452

with signal “ExeBr” from an execution unit (not shown) indicating the successful execution of the previously-predicted branch instruction. Finally, predictor

452

receives confidence level “State1In.C” from predictor

402

to negate update operations for this predictor if a higher-priority predictor (i.e., predictor

402

) was selected for prediction of the subject branch instruction.

In accordance with the logic shown in

FIG. 4

, should predictor

452

mispredict during a prediction operation in which the output of predictor

402

is used (i.e., “State1In.C”=7 which satisfies PTV in this embodiment), then the output of gate

468

is low forcing the output of gate

464

to be low. In which case, the write enable input of table

454

is not enabled and no update of predictor

452

will occur. However, should predictor

452

mispredict during a prediction operation in which the output of predictor

402

is not used (i.e., “State1In.C”≠7 which does not satisfy PTV in this embodiment), then the output of gate

468

is high allowing the output of gate

464

to go high. In which case, the write enable input of table

454

may be enabled (dependent upon the state of other signals as described below) and an update of predictor

452

may occur.

Referring again to the logic shown in

FIG. 4

, if prediction “State2In.P” does not equal actual outcome

110

,the output of exclusive OR gate

470

will be high. After the subject branch instruction has been executed, host processor will output signal “ExeBr” high as well. Finally, since confidence level “State1In.C” of predictor

402

does not equal 7 (in this example), the output of gate

468

will also be high thereby forcing the output of gate

464

high and enabling the write operation of table

454

. Table address “State2In.A” associated with the previously-predicted branch instruction undergoing update processing is applied to the address input of Table

454

through multiplexer

462

. Finally, the original (and, in this example, incorrect) prediction “State2In.P”

10

generated by predictor

452

is inverted by update circuit

456

(

FIG. 8

) and forwarded to data input DI of Table

454

to update the associated entry.

As shown in

FIG. 8

, circuit

456

consists of an inverter which serves to correct an erroneous prediction previously generated by predictor

452

. This corrected value is input to table

454

during update operations provides predictor

402

was not originally selected for providing the prediction, as described above. As would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, the use of an inverter as circuit

456

is optional. Alternatively, circuit

456

may be eliminated in its entirety and input DI of table

454

may simply receive actual outcome value

110

generated by the host processor. This flexibility is possible since only a single bit is processed by circuit

456

. More complex processing is required when multiple bits are updated, as required by predictor

402

(i.e., three-bit confidence level and one-bit prediction).

In the event of a misprediction, the global history word contained in register

460

(

FIG. 5

) will be inaccurate for that and any subsequent prediction. Accordingly, word “State2Out.GHIST” output to the host processor during prediction of the subject branch instruction is returned to register

460

or input via parallel input PI as “State2In.GHIST”. Referring to FIG.

5

,this updating operation is controlled by gates

502

and

504

. As the circuit in

FIG. 5

illustrates, should actual outcome

110

not equal the system-level prediction “PredictIn”, exclusive OR gate

504

will output a logic high. Concurrently, host processor will output signal “ExeBr” to indicate th e subject branch instruction was executed. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, signal ExeBr functions as a “valid” signal for state in formation. Upon receipt of these signals, ate

502

will output a logic high enabling the loading operation of register

460

.

3. System-Level Operation

Referring again to

FIG. 4

, a system-level description of operations will now be provided. During branch prediction operation one-bit predictions “State1Out.P” and “State2Out.P” from predictors

402

and

452

, respectively a re provided to multiplexer

482

for a given conditional branch instruction. Concurrently, predictor

42

generates 3-bit confidence level “State1Out.C” which is forwarded to AND gate

480

. The output of this gate is applied to the control input of multiplexer

482

and selects the prediction from either predictor

402

or

452

. If all three bits of “State1Out.C” are high (representing a decimal 7), a logic high is applied to the selector input of multiplexer

482

thereby selecting “State1Out.P” as system-level prediction “PredictOut”. Alternatively, if the output of AND gate

480

is a logic low, multiplexer

482

selects prediction “State2Out.P” and conveys this as system-level prediction “PredictOut”. This prediction is forwarded to a fetching unit (not shown) of the host processor to control subsequent instruction streams.

The foregoing operational of gate

480

and multiplexer

482

is based upon a PTV for system

400

(“system 400 PTV”) of decimal 7. Accordingly, when the prediction of predictor

402

for the given conditional branch instruction has a confidence level that satisfies system

400

PTV (i.e., a decimal value of 7), then the prediction “State1Out.P” from this predictor is used as the system-level prediction. However, when this prediction is not associated with a sufficiently high confidence level, the prediction from predictor

452

, which in this embodiment is the final predictor, is utilized as the system-level prediction “PredictOut”. Accordingly, gate

480

determines whether the confidence level generated in predictor

402

satisfies system

400

PTV and, if so, outputs a logic high to indicate acceptability.

Upon execution of the given conditional branch instruction by an execution unit in the host processor, actual output value

110

resulting from such execution (e.g., a single bit indicating whether the branch is taken or not-taken) is provided by the execution unit to the inputs of branch prediction system

400

through a feedback loop. If the confidence level “State1In.C” of stage

402

did not satisfy system

400

PTV (i.e., “State1Out.C” does not equal 7) when this prediction was made, lookup table

454

was selected or a prediction. If this prediction was correct, no change is made to Table

454

. If, however, prediction bit “State2Out.P” from Table

454

is incorrect (i.e., this prediction does not equal actual outcome value

110

generated for the given branch instruction), then a complemented “State2Out.P” (equal to correct value

110

) is written into lookup Table

454

to replace the previously stored prediction for this entry.

Further, when confidence level “State1In.C” does not satisfy system

400

PTV when a prediction is made, and if the associated actual outcome value

110

equals the associated prediction “State1Out.P” of Table

404

, then confidence level “State1In.C” is incremented (but not beyond 7) in accordance with the pseudocode and truth table of Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The prediction associated with this confidence level remains unchanged. However, if actual outcome value

110

differs from prediction “State1Out.P” for the given branch instruction, then confidence level “State1In.C” is decremented by 4 (but not below 0) again in accordance with the pseudocode of Table 5. Additionally, the associated prediction “State1Out.P” is replaced with value

110

associated with the given branch instruction.

Finally, if the confidence level “State1In.C” for the given prediction operation does satisfy system

400

PTV (i.e., “State1Out.C” equals 7), then any update operation required applies exclusively to lookup Table

404

. Significantly, no update is performed on Table

454

and, therefore, this table is saved from having space unnecessarily consumed by a branch instruction that relies on a different predictor stage for its prediction. (As described above, gate

468

of stage

452

prevents any update to Table

454

when confidence level “State1In.C” equals 7 and thereby satisfies system

400

PTV). However, global history register

460

will always be updated in accordance with the foregoing description in the event of a misprediction.

FIG. 9

illustrates state output signals generated by branch predictor system

400

. The seven state output signals that make up the composite StateOut

900

for System

400

are concatenated together and maintained by the host processor until needed for updating operations. In such case, StateOut

900

is returned to processor

400

as StateIn

1000

of FIG.

10

. Referring to

FIG. 10

, StateIn

1000

contains the individual state signals required by various components of predictor system

400

to carry out updating operations. The output and input signals shown in

FIGS. 9 and 10

, respectively, bear a one-to-one correspondence. No change is made to their values. Rather, they are simply maintained by the host processor while a branch instruction is executed to provide the necessary information should. updating be required. These values may be maintained through a series of latches, cache memories or any other temporary storage.

In simulated operation, predictor

402

of branch predictor system

400

catches all conditional branches that nearly always go the same direction every time. The confidence level (“State1In.C”) indicates that last-direction works well and no other prediction is required. On a sample benchmark (i.e., the 126.gcc program of SPECint95), 63% of branches were predicted by predictor

402

and only 37% passed on to final predictor

452

. The mispredict rate on the branches predicted by first predictor

402

was only 2.1%. The 37% that passed on were of a more varied behavior and predictor

402

assigned low confidence levels to these branches. Such branches loaded onto predictor

452

which, as described above, incorporates global history in its prediction. Because the easily predicted branches of first predictor

402

did not consume table space in final predictor

452

, this final predictor is more effective since there is less risk of false shares.

The miss rate on branch instructions serviced by final predictor

452

was 16.1% which resulted in a combined overall miss rate of 7.3%.

FIG. 11

illustrates trace-driven simulation results from

21

different predictors and predictor systems against the branch stream of the benchmark program SPECInt95 126.gcc on one of its many inputs (i.e., amptjp). Instruction and address traces were generated using conventional methods and fed into a branch prediction simulator program which decoded instructions, predicted branches and verified the predictions with the branch results to collect statistics for branch prediction accuracy. The program used for branch prediction simulation is attached as an appendix to this application. This program may be configured to model branch predictor system

400

of FIG.

4

.

The exact command line that generated the trace that was simulated is:

./cc

1

-quiet-

0

-funroll-loops-fforce-mem-fcse-follow-jumps\-fcse-skip-blocks-fexpensive-optimizations\-fstrength-reduce-fpeephole-fschedule-insns\-finline-functions-fschedule-insns

2

\amptjp.i-o amptjp.s

Referring again to

FIG. 11

, the types of predictors simulated are listed in the first column and include three bimodal predictors (“bimodal”), nine local history predictors (“local”), three GSHARE predictors (“gshare”), three combined predictors as defined in McFarling (“pair”), and three branch predictor systems utilizing filtering in accordance with the present invention (“filter”). Specific characteristics of each predictor and predictor system, as abbreviated in the first column, may be determined by reference to the appendix attached to this application. Columns

2

through

5

of

FIG. 11

report table size in bytes (“MEM”), number of mispredicts experienced by the predictor or predictor system (“M”), number of branches serviced by each predictor or predictor system (“I”), and the ratio of mispredicts to branches (“M/B”).

FIG. 12

illustrates the placement or branch predictor system

400

within a host processor

1200

. This processor is pipelined with each stage being separated by latches

1250

. As shown in

FIG. 12

, branch predictor system

400

receives program counter values (PC values) from program counter register

1202

. System

400

processes every PC value received and generates a prediction value (i.e., PredictOut) whether or not such value is actually necessary. Control signals generated by host processor

1200

, namely “FetchBr” and “ExeBr,” determine the use of a particular PredictOut value.

Referring to

FIG. 12

, an instruction associated with a particular PC value will be retrieved, for example, from instruction cache

1206

and decoded by decoder

1212

concurrently with branch-prediction processing of system

400

. The decoder will determine instruction type and feed this information back to system

400

as signal “FetchBr”. This signal, as described above, controls the shift-in operation of global history register

460

. Accordingly, a newly-computed PredictOut value is speculatively shifted into register

460

only if the corresponding instruction (via the PC value) is a conditional branch.

As shown in

FIG. 12

, both system

400

and decoder

1212

are coupled to a fetch control unit

1210

. This unit receives a PredictOut value from system

400

and an instruction-type signal from decoder

1212

(i.e., a signal indicating, at least, whether the instruction associated with the latest PredictOut is a conditional branch). If the associated instruction is something other than a conditional branch, the PredictOut value can be safely ignored. However, if the associated instruction is a conditional branch, unit

1210

will utilize the corresponding PredictOut value generated by system

400

to fetch subsequent instructions in accordance with the prediction.

Referring again to

FIG. 12

, fetch control unit

1210

may select (via a multiplexer

1208

) addresses provided by an execution unit

1214

, decoder

1212

or an incrementor

1204

. The address selected via multiplexer

1208

is forwarded to program counter register

1202

which, in turn, will forward the new address to system

400

and instruction cache

1206

to begin the process again.

Once the branch instruction is executed by execution unit

1214

, actual outcome value, state information and a branch execution signal “ExeBr” are returned to system

400

to update predictors in accordance with the foregoing discussion of FIG.

4

. More specifically, if the instruction associated with a particular PredictOut value is not a conditional branch instruction, then signal “ExeBr” (generated by execution unit

1214

) will prohibit any updating of the predictors Of system

400

, as described above. Alternatively, if such instruction is a conditional branch, then “ExeBr” shall be a logic high allowing selective updating as described above. Like the embodiment of

FIG. 3A

, actual outcome value

110

is also generated in execution unit

1214

and forwarded to system

400

. Further, state information is temporarily held within host processor

1200

through any conventional means (i.e., latches, cache memory, etc.), until the actual outcome value is available. After which, this information is also forwarded to system

400

and updating may be performed.

While the foregoing is a complete description of the embodiments of the invention, various modifications, alternatives, and equivalents may be used. Accordingly, the above description should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention which is defined by the appended claims.

Number	Name	Date	Kind
5564118	Steely, Jr. et al.	Oct 1996	A
5758142	McFarling et al.	May 1998	A

	Number	Date	Country
Parent	08/935369	Sep 1997	US
Child	09/544352		US

	Number	Date	Country
Parent	08/934280	Sep 1997	US
Child	08/935369		US

Instruction prediction based on filtering

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

US Classifications

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Abstract

Description

Claims

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

US Referenced Citations (2)

Non-Patent Literature Citations (8)

Continuations (1)

Continuation in Parts (1)