[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] i965: Use NIR by default for vertex shaders on GEN8+

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org> wrote:
>>>> Looking at a couple of the shaders that are still worse off...it looks
>>>> like a ton of Source shaders used to do MUL/ADD with an attribute and
>>>> two immediates, and now are doing MOV/MOV/MAD.
>>>
>>> I just looked, and thought that too for a minute, but it actually
>>> shouldn't be doing that. Take for instance:
>>>
>>> shaders/closed/steam/dota-2/498.shader_test VS SIMD8: 47 -> 53 (12.77%)
>>>
>>> It indeed replaces 6x MUL/ADD pairs with MOV/MAD (introducing 6 extra
>>> MOVs), but....
>>>
>>> Without NIR we have
>>>
>>> mul(8)          g15<1>F         g6<8,8,1>F      6F
>>> ...
>>> add(8)          g16<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     2.1F
>>> add(8)          g35<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     3.1F
>>> add(8)          g42<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     4.1F
>>> add(8)          g45<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     5.1F
>>> add(8)          g48<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     0.1F
>>> add(8)          g51<1>F         g15<8,8,1>F     1.1F
>>>
>>> That is, one multiply is consumed by 6 adds.
>>>
>>> With NIR we have
>>>
>>> mov(1)          g22<1>F         2.1F
>>> mov(1)          g22.1<1>F       6F
>>> mad(8)          g16<1>F         g22<0,1,0>.xF   g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>> mov(1)          g22.2<1>F       3.1F
>>> mad(8)          g23<1>F         g22.2<0,1,0>.xF g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>> mov(1)          g22.3<1>F       4.1F
>>> mad(8)          g30<1>F         g22.3<0,1,0>.xF g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>> mov(1)          g22.4<1>F       5.1F
>>> mad(8)          g33<1>F         g22.4<0,1,0>.xF g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>> mov(1)          g22.5<1>F       0.1F
>>> mad(8)          g36<1>F         g22.5<0,1,0>.xF g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>> mov(1)          g22.6<1>F       1.1F
>>> mad(8)          g39<1>F         g22.6<0,1,0>.xF g22.1<0,1,0>.xF g6<4,4,1>F
>>>
>>> So we're doing the g6 * 6F operation 6 times! We see this in the NIR as well:
>>>
>>>         vec1 ssa_419 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_133
>>>         vec1 ssa_423 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_135
>>>         vec1 ssa_427 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_137
>>>         vec1 ssa_428 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_139
>>>         vec1 ssa_429 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_141
>>>         vec1 ssa_430 = ffma ssa_384, ssa_132, ssa_144
>>>
>>> Whoops. Ideas for fixing that? I'm guessing that this accounts for
>>> nearly all of the remaining 1120 hurt programs.
>>
>> Ugh... We've been tacitly assuming that your constant combine stuff
>> will magically make immediates not a problem.  In this case, they are
>> a problem.  I guess we could do something different for 1 vs. 2
>> immediates.
>
> That's not really the problem as far as I see. I mean, we could split
> MADs that do x * imm + imm, but I would think NIR shouldn't be
> combining these operations if the multiply is used in a bunch of
> places.
>
> The current code in the ffma peephole in does... to quote the comment:
>
>       /* Only absorb a fmul into a ffma if the fmul is is only used in fadd
>        * operations.  This prevents us from being too aggressive with our
>        * fusing which can actually lead to more instructions.
>        */
>
> Can't we pretty trivially modify that to count the number of uses as
> well and only combine if it's used in one place?
>
> To be honest, before I looked in the code I thought that's what it was doing.

If you want to know why I did it that way, just run shader-db. :-)