[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] i965/fs: Combine tex/fb_write operations (opt)

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 02:48:02PM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Ben Widawsky
> >> <benjamin.widawsky at intel.com> wrote:
> >> > +   /* The LOAD_PAYLOAD helper seems like the obvious choice here.
> However, it
> >> > +    * requires a lot of information about the sources to
> appropriately figure
> >> > +    * out the number of registers needed to be used. Given this
> stage in our
> >> > +    * optimization, we may not have the appropriate GRFs required by
> >> > +    * LOAD_PAYLOAD at this point (copy propogation). Therefore, we
> need to
> >>
> >> typo: propagation
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what "w e may not have the appropriate GRFs ..." means?
> >
> > Here is the relevant part of the original IRC conversation:
> > jekstrand       [08:52:30] No, the problem is uniforms and immediates.
> > jekstrand       [08:52:58] They can't go in a LOAD_PAYLOAD directly
> because we don't know how many destination registers they take up.
> > jekstrand       [08:54:16] for LOAD_PAYLOAD to work, we need more
> information than a regular instruction.  We need to know how many
> destination registers a given source takes up, we need to know whether it
> needs to use the second-half quarter control for the MOV that gets
> generated, etc.
> > jekstrand       [08:54:34] Using GRF sources more-or-less gives us
> this.  Immediates don't.
> > bwidawks        [08:54:55] right - this is what confuses me though...
> the immediates seem to already be there.
> > jekstrand       [08:55:38] Right.  The immediates can get there through
> copy-propagation and that's fine.  However, they're not there when it's
> created.
> > jekstrand       [08:55:43] It's all a mess
> >
> > Do you have a preferred way to state this concisely?
>
> Heh, I'm not sure I understand LOAD_PAYLOAD anymore. The comment's
> probably fine as-is.
>

Sorry, that's my fault.  I made LOAD_PAYLOAD a disaster of complicated
details that was probably way too fragile to begin with.  Curro's working
on getting that cleaned up and I think he's got good ideas for doing so.
--Jason


> >> > @@ -3609,6 +3709,7 @@ fs_visitor::optimize()
> >> >        OPT(opt_peephole_predicated_break);
> >> >        OPT(opt_cmod_propagation);
> >> >        OPT(dead_code_eliminate);
> >> > +      OPT(opt_sampler_eot);
> >>
> >> Do you think we really need to do this in the optimization loop?
> >>
> >> I don't expect this to allow other optimization passes to make
> >> additional progress, and we can obviously do it successfully only
> >> once. I suspect we can do it after the optimization loop.
> >>
> >
> > It's possible I didn't quite spot where you want me to put the
> optimization. I
> > think that the way the code works right now, that will not work. The
> > optimization is depending on DCE to kill off the only LOAD_PAYLOAD and
> it's
> > corresponding MOVs. I agree that it is an optimization that can only
> occur once,
> > and generally it doesn't belong in the progress loop though.
>
> Ah, sorry. I'd probably do it between the end of the optimization loop
> and the call to lower_load_payload().
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20150223/5283db55/attachment.html>