[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Nir: Allow CSE of SSBO loads

Francisco Jerez currojerez at riseup.net
Thu Oct 22 07:37:13 PDT 2015

Connor Abbott <cwabbott0 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral at igalia.com> wrote:
>> I implemented this first as a separate optimization pass in GLSL IR [1], but
>> Curro pointed out that this being pretty much a restricted form of a CSE pass
>> it would probably make more sense to do it inside CSE (and we no longer have
>> a CSE pass in GLSL IR).
>> Unlike other things we CSE in NIR, in the case of SSBO loads we need to make
>> sure that we invalidate previous entries in the set in the presence of
>> conflicting instructions (i.e. SSBO writes to the same block and offset) or
>> in the presence of memory barriers.
>> If this is accepted I intend to extend this to also cover image reads, which
>> follow similar behavior.
>> No regressions observed in piglit or dEQP's SSBO functional tests.
>> [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-October/097718.html
>> Iago Toral Quiroga (2):
>>   nir/cse: invalidate SSBO loads in presence of ssbo writes or memory
>>     barriers
>>   nir/instr_set: allow rewrite of SSBO loads
>>  src/glsl/nir/nir_instr_set.c |  24 ++++++--
>>  src/glsl/nir/nir_opt_cse.c   | 142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-dev mailing list
>> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
> NAK, this isn't going to work. NIR CSE is designed for operations
> which can be moved around freely as long they're still dominated by
> the SSA values they use. It makes heavy advantage of this to avoid
> looking at the entire CFG and instead only at the current block and
> its parents in the dominance tree. For example, imagine you have
> something like:
> A = load_ssbo 0
> if  (cond) {
>    store_ssbo 0
> }
> B = load_ssbo 0
> Then A and B can't be combined, but CSE will combine them anyways when
> it reaches B because it keeps a hash table of values dominating B and
> finds A as a match. It doesn't look at the if conditional at all
> because it doesn't dominate the load to B. This is great when you want
> to CSE pure things that don't depend on other side effects -- after
> all, this is the sort of efficiency that SSA is supposed to give us --
> but it means that as-is, it can't be used for e.g. SSBO's and images
> without completely changing how the pass works and making it less
> efficient.
> Now, that being said, I still think that we should definitely be doing
> this sort of thing in NIR now that we've finally added support for
> SSBO's and images. We've been trying to avoid adding new optimizations
> to GLSL, since we've been trying to move away from it. In addition,
> with SPIR-V on the way, anything added to GLSL IR now is something
> that we won't be able to use with SPIR-V shaders. Only doing it in FS
> doesn't sound so great either; we should be doing as much as possible
> at the midlevel, and combining SSBO loads is something that isn't
> FS-specific at all.
> There are two ways I can see support for this being added to NIR:
> 1. Add an extra fake source/destination to intrinsics with side
> effects, and add a pass to do essentially a conversion to SSA that
> wires up these "token" sources/destinations, or perhaps extend the
> existing to-SSA pass.
This is in fact the approach taken by other SSA-form IRs like LLVM's --
Side-effectful instructions take a "chain" input as argument and spit
out a new chain token which can then be passed as argument to subsequent
non-pure instructions for which a control-flow dependency exists.

> 2. Add a special "load-combining" pass that does some dataflow
> analysis or similar (or, for now, only looks at things within a single
> block).
> The advantage of #1 is that we get to use existing NIR passes, like
> CSE, DCE, and GCM "for free" on SSBO loads and stores, without having
> to do the equivalent thing using dataflow analysis. Also, doing store
> forwarding (i.e. replacing the result of an SSBO load with the value
> corresponding to a store, if we can figure out which store affects it)
> is going to much easier. However, #1 is going to be much more of a
> research project. I've thought about how we could do it, but I'm still
> not sure how it could be done feasibly and still be correct.
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
-------------- 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/20151022/dd2ba729/attachment.sig>

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list