On 03/05/2018 04:53 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 3:56:06 PM PST Ian Romanick wrote:
>> From: Ian Romanick <ian.d.roman...@intel.com>
>>
>> No changes on other platforms.
>>
>> Haswell, Ivy Bridge, and Sandy Bridge had similar results. (Haswell shown)
>> total instructions in shared programs: 13059891 -> 13059884 (<.01%)
>> instructions in affected programs: 431 -> 424 (-1.62%)
>> helped: 7
>> HURT: 0
>> helped stats (abs) min: 1 max: 1 x̄: 1.00 x̃: 1
>> helped stats (rel) min: 1.19% max: 5.26% x̄: 2.05% x̃: 1.49%
>> 95% mean confidence interval for instructions value: -1.00 -1.00
>> 95% mean confidence interval for instructions %-change: -3.39% -0.71%
>> Instructions are helped.
>>
>> total cycles in shared programs: 409260032 -> 409260018 (<.01%)
>> cycles in affected programs: 4228 -> 4214 (-0.33%)
>> helped: 7
>> HURT: 0
>> helped stats (abs) min: 2 max: 2 x̄: 2.00 x̃: 2
>> helped stats (rel) min: 0.28% max: 2.04% x̄: 0.54% x̃: 0.28%
>> 95% mean confidence interval for cycles value: -2.00 -2.00
>> 95% mean confidence interval for cycles %-change: -1.15% 0.07%
>>
>> Inconclusive result (%-change mean confidence interval includes 0).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ian Romanick <ian.d.roman...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> src/intel/compiler/brw_vec4_cse.cpp | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_vec4_cse.cpp
>> b/src/intel/compiler/brw_vec4_cse.cpp
>> index aa2f127..3302939 100644
>> --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_vec4_cse.cpp
>> +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_vec4_cse.cpp
>> @@ -104,6 +104,27 @@ operands_match(const vec4_instruction *a, const
>> vec4_instruction *b)
>> return xs[0].equals(ys[0]) &&
>> ((xs[1].equals(ys[1]) && xs[2].equals(ys[2])) ||
>> (xs[2].equals(ys[1]) && xs[1].equals(ys[2])));
>> + } else if (a->opcode == BRW_OPCODE_MOV &&
>> + xs[0].file == IMM &&
>> + xs[0].type == BRW_REGISTER_TYPE_VF) {
>> + src_reg tmp_x = xs[0];
>> + src_reg tmp_y = ys[0];
>> +
>> + /* Smash out the values that are not part of the writemask. Otherwise
>> + * the equals and negative_equals operators will fail due to
>> mismatches
>> + * in unused components.
>> + */
>> + static const uint32_t mask[] = {
>> + 0x00000000, 0x000000ff, 0x0000ff00, 0x0000ffff,
>> + 0x00ff0000, 0x00ff00ff, 0x00ffff00, 0x00ffffff,
>> + 0xff000000, 0xff0000ff, 0xff00ff00, 0xff00ffff,
>> + 0xffff0000, 0xffff00ff, 0xffffff00, 0xffffffff
>> + };
>
> This looks a bit crazy at first glance...it isn't though, it's just a
> mapping from WRITEMASK_* to the proper byte masks. But I think it might
> be clearer to write it with an explicit formula:
>
> unsigned ab_writemask = a->dst.writemask & b->dst.writemask;
> uint32_t mask = ((ab_writemask & WRITEMASK_X) ? 0x000000ff : 0) |
> ((ab_writemask & WRITEMASK_Y) ? 0x0000ff00 : 0) |
> ((ab_writemask & WRITEMASK_Z) ? 0x00ff0000 : 0) |
> ((ab_writemask & WRITEMASK_W) ? 0xff000000 : 0);
> tmp_x.ud &= mask;
> tmp_y.ud &= mask;
I was going to complain that this would be bigger / less efficient /
something. However, in a release build this is actually 48 bytes
smaller. :)
> This makes it pretty obvious what's going on.
>
> Either way (though I prefer mine),
> Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
>
>> +
>> + tmp_x.ud &= mask[a->dst.writemask & b->dst.writemask];
>> + tmp_y.ud &= mask[a->dst.writemask & b->dst.writemask];
>> +
>> + return tmp_x.equals(tmp_y);
>> } else if (!a->is_commutative()) {
>> return xs[0].equals(ys[0]) && xs[1].equals(ys[1]) &&
>> xs[2].equals(ys[2]);
>> } else {
>>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
