[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] Improvements to the vec4 spilling code

Francisco Jerez currojerez at riseup.net
Tue Jul 28 08:17:55 PDT 2015

Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral at igalia.com> writes:

> Link to v1:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-July/089766.html
> Changes after review (Curro)
>   - Drop the patch that asserted that the reg size should always be 1
>   - Expand this so that we do not unspill a register if we have just
>     unspilled it as well
>   - Use brw_mask_for_swizzle
>   - Update spilling costs accordingly
> New changes:
>   - Expand the optimizations that are based on caching the spilled/unspilled
>     so we keep using the cached register for as long as consecutive instructions
>     keep reading the register (the previous version would only do this for one
>     instruction). This is because we only see benefits for register allocation
>     when there are gaps in the life span of a register where it is not used
>     (because these are the only instances in which we can use that reg for a
>     different purpose), so as long as consecutive instructions keep reading a
>     register we have just spilled or unspilled, we don't have to unspill it
>     again.
I think this may be a good idea (assuming you've managed to measure an
improvement in practice), but I don't think that the explanation is
strictly speaking correct.  It *may* be beneficial to, say, unspill a
variable for instruction i and then do it again for instruction i+1,
because the set of variables live at instruction i may not be exactly
the same as in instruction i+1, and by caching the value between both
instructions you cause the temporary to interfere with the union of both
sets simultaneously, what may increase the total number of registers
required to register-allocate the program.

That said I think that this may still be a good idea because the
register-pressure benefit from separating the live ranges of temporaries
used in consecutive instructions is likely to be tiny typically, the
program is likely to have other spilling candidates which may simplify
the interference graph drastically for the same amount of fill/spill
bandwidth invested, so I think you're right that in most cases it's
going to be silly to re-spill/fill the same variable in consecutive

In the future it may also be worth checking whether the heuristic can be
refined to use some sort of register pressure-sensitive distance between
uses of the same spilled variable as metric to decide whether the
variable is worth re-spilling or if it makes sense for it to be cached
between a pair of potentially non-consecutive uses.

Anyway I'll have a closer look at the rest of your series soon-ish.

> Other  
> Iago Toral Quiroga (6):
>   i965/vec4: Only emit one scratch read per instruction for spilled
>     registers
>   i965/vec4: Remove checks for reladdr when checking for spillable
>     registers
>   i965/vec4: Don't emit scratch reads for a spilled register we have
>     just written
>   i965/vec4: Don't emit scratch reads for a register we have just
>     unspilled
>   i965/vec4: Adjust spilling cost for consecutive instructions
>   i965: Add a debug option for spilling everything in vec4 code
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp  |   2 +-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4.cpp             |   2 +-
>  .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp     | 145 +++++++++++++++++++--
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_debug.c            |   3 +-
>  src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_debug.h            |   5 +-
>  5 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> -- 
> 1.9.1
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 212 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20150728/4dade2f7/attachment.sig>

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list