The memory wall continues to limit the performance of modern out-of-order (OOO) processors, despite the expensive provisioning of large multi-level caches and advancements in memory prefetching. In this paper, we put forth an important observation that the memory wall is not monolithic, but is constituted of many latency walls arising due to the latency of each tier of cache/memory. Our results show that even though level-1 (L1) data cache latency is nearly 40X lower than main memory latency, mitigating this latency offers a very similar performance opportunity as the more widely studied, main memory latency.

Value Prediction was proposed to speculatively break true data dependencies, thereby allowing Out of Order (OOO) processors to achieve higher instruction level parallelism (ILP) and gain performance. State-of-the-art value predictors try to maximize the number of instructions that can be value predicted, with the belief that a higher coverage will unlock more ILP and increase performance. Unfortunately, this comes at increased complexity with implementations that require multiple different types of value predictors working in tandem, incurring substantial area and power cost.In this paper we motivate towards lower coverage, but focused, value prediction. Instead of aggressively increasing the coverage of value prediction, at the cost of higher area and power, we motivate refocusing value prediction as a mechanism to achieve an early execution of instructions that frequently create performance bottlenecks in the OOO processor. Since we do not aim for high coverage, our implementation is light-weight, needing just 1.2 KB of storage. Simulation results on 60 diverse workloads show that we deliver 3.3% performance gain over a baseline similar to the Intel Skylake processor. This performance gain increases substantially to 8.6% when we simulate a futuristic up-scaled version of Skylake. In contrast, for the same storage, state-of-the-art value predictors deliver a much lower speedup of 1.7% and 4.7% respectively. Notably, our proposal is similar to these predictors in performance, even when they are given nearly eight times the storage and have 60% more prediction coverage than our solution.