[Mesa-dev] shader-db, and justifying an i965 compiler optimization.
eric at anholt.net
Wed May 18 12:23:40 PDT 2011
On Wed, 18 May 2011 09:00:09 +0200, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 05/18/2011 05:22 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > One of the pain points of working on compiler optimizations has been
> > justifying them -- sometimes I come up with something I think is
> > useful and spend a day or two on it, but the value doesn't show up as
> > fps in the application that suggested the optimization to me. Then I
> > wonder if this transformation of the code is paying off in general,
> > and thus if I should push it. If I don't push it, I end up bringing
> > that patch out on every application I look at that it could affect, to
> > see if now I finally have justification to get it out of a private
> > branch.
> > At a conference this week, we heard about how another team is are
> > using a database of (assembly) shaders, which they run through their
> > compiler and count resulting instructions for testing purposes. This
> > sounded like a fun idea, so I threw one together. Patch #1 is good in
> This is one of those ideas that seems so obvious after you hear about it
> that you can't believe you hadn't thought of it years ago. This seems
> like something we'd want in piglit, but I'm not sure how that would look.
Incidentally, Tom Stellard has apparently been doing this across piglit
already. This makes me think that maybe I want to just roll the
captured open-source shaders into glslparsertest, and just use the
analysis stuff on piglit.
> The first problem is, obviously, using INTEL_DEBUG=wm to get the
> instruction counts won't work. :) Perhaps we could extend some of the
> existing assembly program queries (e.g.,
> GL_PROGRAM_NATIVE_INSTRUCTIONS_ARB) to GLSL. That would help even if we
> didn't incorporate this into piglit.
You say it won't work, but I'm using it and it is working :)
Oh, you mean you want a clean solution and not a dirty hack? Yeah, I'd
really like to have an interface for apps (read: shader debuggers) to
get our annotated assembly out.
> > And finally, patch #3 is something I built before but couldn't really
> > justify until now. However, given that it reduced fragment shader
> > instructions 0.3% across 831 shaders (affecting 52 of them including
> > yofrankie, warsow, norsetto, and gstreamer) and didn't increase
> > instructions anywhere, I'm a lot happier now.
> We'll probably want to be able to disable this once we have some sort of
> CSE on the low-level IR. This sort of optimization can cause problems
> for CSE in cases where the same register is a source and a destination.
> Imagine something like
> z = sqrt(x) + y;
> z = z * w;
> q = sqrt(x) + y;
> If the result of the first 'sqrt(x) + y' is written directly to z, the
> value is "gone" when the second 'sqrt(x) + y' is executed. If that
> result is written to a temporary register that is then copied to z, the
> value is still around at the second instance.
> Since we don't have any CSE, this doesn't matter now. However, it's
> something to keep in mind.
I think for CSE on 965 LIR, we'll want to be aggressive, and just
consider whether the RHS values are still around, so we can execute to a
temp and reuse it on math instructions. Otherwise, you end up with
weird ordering requirements on the optimization passes to ensure that
register coalescing doesn't kill these CSE opportunities.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the mesa-dev