Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 00/10] shader_runner support for micro benchmarks
Paul Berry writes: > On 16 October 2013 13:33, Jordan Justen wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> > Jordan Justen writes: >> > >> >> git://people.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit shader_runner-time-v1 >> >> >> >> I think shader_runner could be an easy way to develop >> >> quick micro-benchmarks when working on performance. >> >> >> >> I found shader_runner only required a few tweaks to >> >> be usable for this with depth clears. >> >> >> >> I'm not suggesting (at least in this series), that >> >> we add any micro benchmark scripts to the tree. Rather >> >> I would just like to make it possible to write such >> >> scripts for shader_runner. >> >> >> >> The last patch in this series provides an example >> >> usage, but I don't want that patch to be added to piglit. >> > >> > I don't think we should add this to shader_runner. >> >> So, none of the patches? >> >> For example, are 1 & 2 valuable? My thought is, aren't many/most >> shader_test's indifferent to the window size? So, perhaps we could >> shrink the default size down smaller for Linux runs? (I know windows >> has some lower bound for size.) >> > > I think patches 1 and 2 are valuable and should be kept. > > >> >> > You spent more code >> > putting this in shader_runner than it would have taken to just hack >> > something up standalone, >> >> Possibly. The shader_runner changes aren't that fancy though. >> >> But, I find tweaking and re-running a shader_test is faster/easier. >> >> Regarding the 'time' commands, I thought it might be an convenient way >> to micro benchmark shader code issue, although my series doesn't do >> this. But, if you don't agree that this is valuable, well, then it >> probably isn't. >> >> > and shader_runner is already a frankenstein. >> >> Without a doubt. Have we officially drawn a line that shader_runner is >> too much of a monster, and we should avoid adding new features to it? >> > > I don't think we've drawn that line. Yes, shader_runner is ugly and hacky, > but there's a large class of tests where it's way easier to write > shader_runner tests than to write c tests. If we can broaden this class by > small, incremental improvements to shader_runner, I'm all for it. > > If someone wants to submit some patches that make shader_runner less hacky, > I'm in favor of that too. Agreed -- shader_runner should get new features when it lets us write piglit tests more easily/understandably. But I do think there should be a line drawn at "features not required for piglit tests" -- we have mesa-demos for misc GL things that aren't related to automated regression testing. pgp11qVngiK_e.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 00/10] shader_runner support for micro benchmarks
On 16 October 2013 13:33, Jordan Justen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: > > Jordan Justen writes: > > > >> git://people.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit shader_runner-time-v1 > >> > >> I think shader_runner could be an easy way to develop > >> quick micro-benchmarks when working on performance. > >> > >> I found shader_runner only required a few tweaks to > >> be usable for this with depth clears. > >> > >> I'm not suggesting (at least in this series), that > >> we add any micro benchmark scripts to the tree. Rather > >> I would just like to make it possible to write such > >> scripts for shader_runner. > >> > >> The last patch in this series provides an example > >> usage, but I don't want that patch to be added to piglit. > > > > I don't think we should add this to shader_runner. > > So, none of the patches? > > For example, are 1 & 2 valuable? My thought is, aren't many/most > shader_test's indifferent to the window size? So, perhaps we could > shrink the default size down smaller for Linux runs? (I know windows > has some lower bound for size.) > I think patches 1 and 2 are valuable and should be kept. > > > You spent more code > > putting this in shader_runner than it would have taken to just hack > > something up standalone, > > Possibly. The shader_runner changes aren't that fancy though. > > But, I find tweaking and re-running a shader_test is faster/easier. > > Regarding the 'time' commands, I thought it might be an convenient way > to micro benchmark shader code issue, although my series doesn't do > this. But, if you don't agree that this is valuable, well, then it > probably isn't. > > > and shader_runner is already a frankenstein. > > Without a doubt. Have we officially drawn a line that shader_runner is > too much of a monster, and we should avoid adding new features to it? > I don't think we've drawn that line. Yes, shader_runner is ugly and hacky, but there's a large class of tests where it's way easier to write shader_runner tests than to write c tests. If we can broaden this class by small, incremental improvements to shader_runner, I'm all for it. If someone wants to submit some patches that make shader_runner less hacky, I'm in favor of that too. > > > I do most of my throwaway microbenchmarks in the mesa-demos repo. > > Would you be willing to consider ways to make this convenient in > piglit, such as patch 3/piglit_get_microseconds? > > -Jordan > ___ > Piglit mailing list > Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit > ___ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 00/10] shader_runner support for micro benchmarks
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Eric Anholt wrote: > Jordan Justen writes: > >> git://people.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit shader_runner-time-v1 >> >> I think shader_runner could be an easy way to develop >> quick micro-benchmarks when working on performance. >> >> I found shader_runner only required a few tweaks to >> be usable for this with depth clears. >> >> I'm not suggesting (at least in this series), that >> we add any micro benchmark scripts to the tree. Rather >> I would just like to make it possible to write such >> scripts for shader_runner. >> >> The last patch in this series provides an example >> usage, but I don't want that patch to be added to piglit. > > I don't think we should add this to shader_runner. So, none of the patches? For example, are 1 & 2 valuable? My thought is, aren't many/most shader_test's indifferent to the window size? So, perhaps we could shrink the default size down smaller for Linux runs? (I know windows has some lower bound for size.) > You spent more code > putting this in shader_runner than it would have taken to just hack > something up standalone, Possibly. The shader_runner changes aren't that fancy though. But, I find tweaking and re-running a shader_test is faster/easier. Regarding the 'time' commands, I thought it might be an convenient way to micro benchmark shader code issue, although my series doesn't do this. But, if you don't agree that this is valuable, well, then it probably isn't. > and shader_runner is already a frankenstein. Without a doubt. Have we officially drawn a line that shader_runner is too much of a monster, and we should avoid adding new features to it? > I do most of my throwaway microbenchmarks in the mesa-demos repo. Would you be willing to consider ways to make this convenient in piglit, such as patch 3/piglit_get_microseconds? -Jordan ___ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
Re: [Piglit] [PATCH 00/10] shader_runner support for micro benchmarks
Jordan Justen writes: > git://people.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit shader_runner-time-v1 > > I think shader_runner could be an easy way to develop > quick micro-benchmarks when working on performance. > > I found shader_runner only required a few tweaks to > be usable for this with depth clears. > > I'm not suggesting (at least in this series), that > we add any micro benchmark scripts to the tree. Rather > I would just like to make it possible to write such > scripts for shader_runner. > > The last patch in this series provides an example > usage, but I don't want that patch to be added to piglit. I don't think we should add this to shader_runner. You spent more code putting this in shader_runner than it would have taken to just hack something up standalone, and shader_runner is already a frankenstein. I do most of my throwaway microbenchmarks in the mesa-demos repo. pgpQPKzuk4E3L.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
[Piglit] [PATCH 00/10] shader_runner support for micro benchmarks
git://people.freedesktop.org/~jljusten/piglit shader_runner-time-v1 I think shader_runner could be an easy way to develop quick micro-benchmarks when working on performance. I found shader_runner only required a few tweaks to be usable for this with depth clears. I'm not suggesting (at least in this series), that we add any micro benchmark scripts to the tree. Rather I would just like to make it possible to write such scripts for shader_runner. The last patch in this series provides an example usage, but I don't want that patch to be added to piglit. Jordan Justen (10): shader_runner: support SIZE in requirement section of a shader_test glsl-1.50: add size requirements to 3 shader_test tests piglit-util: add piglit_get_microseconds shader_runner: add 'time reset' and 'time show' commands shader_runner: support depth visual with DEPTH keyword in requirements shader_runner: enable depth clear shader_runner: enable scissor command shader_runner: add echo command shader_runner: add finish command Example shader_test scripts using new commands 1080p-depth-glsl-clear.shader_test | 39 +++ 1080p-depth-hiz-clear.shader_test | 39 +++ CMakeLists.txt |6 ++ tests/shaders/shader_runner.c | 71 .../execution/geometry/point-size-out.shader_test |5 +- .../redeclare-pervertex-out-subset-gs.shader_test |5 +- .../redeclare-pervertex-subset-vs.shader_test |5 +- tests/util/piglit-util.c | 17 + tests/util/piglit-util.h |8 +++ 9 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) create mode 100644 1080p-depth-glsl-clear.shader_test create mode 100644 1080p-depth-hiz-clear.shader_test -- 1.7.10.4 ___ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
