[Mesa-dev] Allowing the reading of outputs for some drivers

Ian Romanick idr at freedesktop.org
Tue Nov 15 00:27:27 PST 2011

On 11/14/2011 07:16 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Vadim Girlin<vadimgirlin at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 05:22 -0800, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I found some problem with glsl_to_tgsi: remove_output_reads function.
>>>> It's replacing outputs with temps, producing incorrect results with
>>>> relative addressing. You can see it e.g. with
>>>> "vs-varying-array-mat2-col-rd.shader_test". Here is a dump:
>>>>> VERT
>>>>> DCL IN[0]
>>>>> DCL OUT[1], GENERIC[12]
>>>>> DCL OUT[2], GENERIC[13]
>>>>> DCL OUT[3], GENERIC[14]
>>>>> DCL OUT[4], GENERIC[15]
>>>>> DCL OUT[5], GENERIC[16]
>>>>> DCL OUT[6], GENERIC[17]
>>>>> DCL OUT[7], GENERIC[18]
>>>>> DCL CONST[0..5]
>>>>> DCL TEMP[0..1]
>>>>> DCL ADDR[0]
>>>>> IMM FLT32 {    1.0000,     2.0000,     3.0000,     4.0000}
>>>>> IMM FLT32 {    5.0000,     6.0000,     7.0000,     8.0000}
>>>>> IMM FLT32 {    9.0000,    10.0000,    11.0000,    12.0000}
>>>>> IMM FLT32 {    0.0000,     1.0000,     0.0000,     0.0000}
>>>>>    0: MUL TEMP[0], CONST[2], IN[0].xxxx
>>>>>    1: MAD TEMP[1], CONST[3], IN[0].yyyy, TEMP[0]
>>>>>    2: MAD TEMP[1], CONST[4], IN[0].zzzz, TEMP[1]
>>>>>    3: MAD OUT[0], CONST[5], IN[0].wwww, TEMP[1]
>>>>>    4: MOV OUT[2], IMM[0].xyyy
>>>>>    5: MOV OUT[3], IMM[0].zwww
>>>>>    6: MOV TEMP[0], IMM[1].xyyy
>>>> OUT[2-7] is a "varying mat2x2[3] m;", OUT[4] is replaced with the
>>>> temp
>>>> in the instruction 6.
>>>>>    7: MOV OUT[5], IMM[1].zwww
>>>>>    8: MOV OUT[6], IMM[2].xyyy
>>>>>    9: MOV OUT[7], IMM[2].zwww
>>>>>   10: ARL ADDR[0].x, CONST[1].xxxx
>>>>>   11: SNE TEMP[1], TEMP[ADDR[0].x].xyyy, CONST[0].xyyy
>>>> Instruction 11 contains the read with the relative addressing using
>>>> this temp, which is incorrect.
>>>> I'm not sure how to fix it,
>>> The way to fix this is to allocate a consecutive range of temps at start, when there are indirect writes to output registers and at least one read.
>>>> but AFAICS at least for r600g this step
>>>> could be skipped completely - r600 can read outputs without any
>>>> problem, they are located in the general-purpose registers. Removing
>>>> calls to remove_output_reads and assert(src.File != TGSI_FILE_OUTPUT)
>>>> in the ureg_emit_src produces correct result and test passes on
>>>> evergreen (total number of fixed tests is about 60).
>>>> Probably it makes sense to make this step optional and ask the driver
>>>> whether to use it, if I'm not missing something?
>>> The drawback of doing this is that TGSI will look even more different between drivers. This means that when somebody makes a change to the state tracker, and tested with one driver, it may break other drivers. This also means that comparing a driver to llvmpipe/softpipe will be less meaningfull, as different paths will be taken in the state tracker.
>> I think if it's needed to compare the drivers, than it's possible to
>> switch of the the cap for debugging. I see the drawbacks, but this is
>> also about performance. Currently with r600g (and possibly with other
>> drivers) we have to spend some time for unneccessary shader
>> modification, to get less efficient shader code as a result.
> I am 100% sure nobody will turn on/off CAPs just to test something.
> I gotta agree with José on this one.

I guess I don't follow.  Different hardware can do different things, and 
the code for that hardware will look different.  What's the problem?  It 
seems silly to spend CPU time rearranging the code and then hoping the 
driver will spend more CPU time to put it back the way it was.  People 
using these drivers *do* care about CPU performance, after all. :)

> The shader backend in a driver is primarily responsible for the
> quality of final shader code, not the state tracker, although the
> state tracker can help a lot.
> r600g already allocates outputs in the temporary area, so it's not
> like remove_output_reads would make any difference for that driver,
> right?* Why not fix remove_output_reads such that it works with
> indirect addressing? That would also fix _all the other drivers_ which
> don't support output reads.
> * Lack of proper register allocation is not an excuse, especially if
> new temporaries are allocated by a driver for whatever reasons.
> Marek
>> By the way, which drivers do not support reading outputs? I haven't done
>> a full piglit run with llvmpipe, but IIRR the single test mentioned
>> above was also fixed for llvmpipe without this output replacement.
>> Vadim
>>> I'm not sure if for this particular issue a new cap is worth or not. Just pointing out that there are downsides of breaking orthogonality between state tracker and driver. It should not be done lightly.
>>> Jose

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list