On 02.06.2017 15:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Nicolai Hähnle <nicolai.haeh...@amd.com>

Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org
---
  src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c 
b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
index e6a9ee0..3d1d1f8 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state_draw.c
@@ -181,20 +181,34 @@ static void si_emit_derived_tess_state(struct si_context 
*sctx,

         /* Not necessary for correctness, but improves performance. The
          * specific value is taken from the proprietary driver.
          */
         *num_patches = MIN2(*num_patches, 40);

         /* SI bug workaround - limit LS-HS threadgroups to only one wave. */
         if (sctx->b.chip_class == SI) {
                 unsigned one_wave = 64 / MAX2(num_tcs_input_cp, 
num_tcs_output_cp);
                 *num_patches = MIN2(*num_patches, one_wave);
+
+               if (sctx->screen->b.info.max_se == 1) {
+                       /* The VGT HS block increments the patch ID 
unconditionally
+                        * within a single threadgroup. This results in 
incorrect
+                        * patch IDs when instanced draws are used.
+                        *
+                        * The intended solution is to restrict threadgroups to
+                        * a single instance by setting SWITCH_ON_EOI, which
+                        * should cause IA to split instances up. However, this
+                        * doesn't work correctly on SI when there is no other
+                        * SE to switch to.
+                        */
+                       *num_patches = 1;
+               }

Hi Nicolai,

This commit massively decreases tessellation performance on SI 1-SE
parts. We need a different solution. Would this work: "Set num_patches
to the greatest divisor of the the number of patches per instance."

Yes, that should be sufficient. Actually, it'd be even better to only do the workaround when PRIM_ID is read, which is probably quite rare...

Do you already have a patch for the first part?

Thanks,
Nicolai
--
Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Reply via email to