On 12/09/2014 05:18 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 8 December 2014 at 20:41, Vadim Girlin <vadimgir...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2014 07:13 AM, Vadim Girlin wrote:
On 12/04/2014 01:43 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi Vadim,
I've been looking with Glenn's help into a bug in sb for a couple of
weeks now triggered by a change in how GLSL generates switch
statements.
I understand you probably aren't too interested in r600g but I believe
I'm hitting a design level problem and I would like some advice.
So it appears that GLSL can create loops that don't repeat for switch
statements, and it appears SB wasn't ready to handle such a thing.
Hi, Dave,
I suspect we should rather get rid of such loops somehow, i.e. convert
to something else, the loop that never repeats is not really a loop
anyway. AFAICS "continue" is not supported in switch statements
according to GLSL specs, so the loops generated for switch will never be
repeated. Am I missing something? Even if repeating is possible somehow,
at least we can get rid of the loops that are not repeated.
I think loops are less efficient than other control flow instructions on
r600g hw (at least because they increase stack usage), and possibly on
other hw too.
In fact it seems sb basically gets rid of it already in IR, it just
doesn't know how to translate resulting control flow to ISA, because so
far it only supports specific control flow structure for if-then-else
that was previously preserved during optimizations. I think it may be
not very hard to implement support for that in finalizer, I'll look into
it.
In fact handling that control flow in finalizer is not as easy as I hoped,
probably impossible, at least if we want to make it efficient. I forgot
about the limitations of R600 ISA.
OTOH it seems I've managed to fix the issues with loops, the patch is
attached (it's meant to be used instead of 7b0067d2). There are no piglit
regressions on evergreen, but I didn't test any real apps.
This does seem to fix the problems in piglit, and looks close to what
I was attempting but written by someone who knows what they are doing :-)
What is the sb_sched.cpp change for at the end for?
It fixes those scheduler/regalloc errors for switch tests.
Unfortunately, now I've installed some benchmarks for testing and AFAICS
this patch breaks at least lightsmark 2008, so it seems the condition
removed by the patch was there for a reason.
I'll probably try to come up with better fix.
Vadim
Dave.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
