[Mesa-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] i965/vec4: Don't unspill the same register in consecutive instructions
Francisco Jerez
currojerez at riseup.net
Wed Sep 2 07:53:16 PDT 2015
Iago Toral <itoral at igalia.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 14:29 +0300, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Iago Toral <itoral at igalia.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Curro,
>> >
>> > I have been a couple of weeks on holidays and have just come back to
>> > this:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 18:27 +0300, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> >> Iago Toral Quiroga <itoral at igalia.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > If we have spilled/unspilled a register in the current instruction, avoid
>> >> > emitting unspills for the same register in the same instruction or consecutive
>> >> > instructions following the current one as long as they keep reading the spilled
>> >> > register. This should allow us to avoid emitting costy unspills that come with
>> >> > little benefit to register allocation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Also, update evaluate_spill_costs so that we account for the saved unspills.
>> >> > ---
>> >> > .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp | 129 +++++++++++++++++++--
>> >> > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
>> >> > index 617c988..fed5f4d 100644
>> >> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
>> >> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_vec4_reg_allocate.cpp
>> >> > @@ -264,6 +264,95 @@ vec4_visitor::reg_allocate()
>> >> > return true;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > +/**
>> >> > + * When we decide to spill a register, instead of blindly spilling every use,
>> >> > + * save unspills when the spill register is used (read) in consecutive
>> >> > + * instructions. This can potentially save a bunch of unspills that would
>> >> > + * have very little impact in register allocation anyway.
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * Notice that we need to account for this behavior when spilling a register
>> >> > + * and when evaluating spilling costs. This function is designed so it can
>> >> > + * be called from both places and avoid repeating the logic.
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * - When we call this function from spill_reg, we pass in scratch_reg the
>> >> > + * actual unspill/spill register that we want to reuse in the current
>> >> > + * instruction.
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * - When we call this from evaluate_spill_costs, we pass the register for
>> >> > + * which we are evaluating spilling costs.
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * In either case, we check if the previous instructions read scratch_reg until
>> >> > + * we find an instruction that writes to it (in which case we can reuse
>> >> > + * scratch_reg as long as the writemask is compatible with the channels we need
>> >> > + * to read in the current instruction) or we hit an instruction that does not
>> >> > + * read scratch_reg at all. The latter can only happen when we call this from
>> >> > + * evaluate_spill_costs,
>> >>
>> >> Strictly speaking it can also happen when called from spill_reg() for
>> >> the first time in a given sequence of consecutive instructions (in which
>> >> case you correctly return false).
>> >
>> > not really, spill_reg() knows if it is the first time that it is
>> > spilling a register and won't call this function in that case.
>> >
>> You may have several disjoint sequences of consecutive instructions
>> using spill_reg_nr repeatedly. The check you have in spill_reg() will
>> only help you for the first one sequence, so it's in fact redundant
>> because can_use_scratch_for_source() seems to handle the case in which
>> the register access is the first in a sequence just fine anyway.
>
> Ah, right. I'll update the comment accordingly.
>
>> >> > and means that this is the point at which we first
>> >> > + * need the unspill this register for our current instruction. Since all our
>> >> > + * unspills read a full vec4, we know that in this case we will have all
>> >> > + * the channels available in scratch_reg and we can reuse it.
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * In any other case, we can't reuse scratch_reg in the current instruction,
>> >> > + * meaning that we will need to unspill it.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > +static bool
>> >> > +can_use_scratch_for_source(const vec4_instruction *inst, unsigned i,
>> >> > + unsigned scratch_reg)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > + assert(inst->src[i].file == GRF);
>> >> > +
>> >> > + /* If the current instruction is already using scratch_reg in src[n] with
>> >> > + * n < i, then we know we can reuse it for src[i] too.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + for (unsigned n = 0; n < i; n++) {
>> >> > + if (inst->src[n].file == GRF && inst->src[n].reg == scratch_reg)
>> >> > + return true;
>> >> > + }
>> >>
>> >> I don't think this is correct in cases where the previous source reused
>> >> the temporary of a previously spilled register with incompatible
>> >> writemask. You probably want to handle the current instruction
>> >> consistently with the previous ones, i.e. as part of the loop below.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you define a variable (e.g. n as you've called it) initially
>> >> equal to i that would determine the number of sources to check for the
>> >> next instruction. At the end of the loop body it would be re-set to 3,
>> >> what would also cause the destination registers to be checked in
>> >> subsequent iterations.
>> >
>> > I have been thinking a bit about this and decided that it was simpler to
>> > keep this part as it is in this patch and simply fix the condition to
>> > check that the swizzle we read in src[i] is a subset of the swizzle in
>> > src[n] too. I think that using the value of 'n' like you suggest would
>> > make things a bit less clear in the loop below since we would be using
>> > the value of n to tell if we are processing the current instruction or a
>> > previous instruction (and thus decide if we need to check the dst or
>> > not), which is not an obvious association. In any case, let me know if
>> > you have a strong preference for your implementation and I'll change
>> > that.
>> >
>> Wouldn't that be unnecessarily pessimistic if the n-th argument happens
>> to read a subset of the components which are available in scratch_reg?
>
> I think it wouldn't. That loop only checks if we can make the decision
> of reusing scratch_reg early only by looking at previous srcs in the
> current instruction. If none of the previous srcs in the same
> instruction reads scratch_reg with a compatible readmask we do not
> return FALSE, we just we just do as usual and check previous
> instructions, and we make the decision based on that.
>
You won't directly return false, but prev_inst_read_scratch_reg is left
equal to false and if there's no previous read or write of the same
register you'll return false incorrectly. Anyway I was suggesting that
because it's also likely to be easier than having to check the swizzles
explicitly.
>> If you want to keep the loop unrolled, I suggest you simply move the
>> prev_inst_read_scratch_reg declaration up and have the first loop set it
>> to true if any of the sources reads from scratch_reg instead of exiting
>> the function.
>> >> > +
>> >> > + bool prev_inst_read_scratch_reg = false;
>> >> > + vec4_instruction *prev_inst = (vec4_instruction *) inst->prev;
>> >>
>> >> You can move this declaration into the init statement of the for loop to
>> >> limit its scope.
>> >>
>> >> > + for (; !prev_inst->is_head_sentinel();
>> >> > + prev_inst = (vec4_instruction *) prev_inst->prev) {
>> >> > + /* If any previous instruction does not read from or write to scratch_reg
>> >> > + * inconditonally we cannot reuse scratch_reg
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + if (prev_inst->predicate && prev_inst->opcode != BRW_OPCODE_SEL)
>> >> > + return false;
>> >>
>> >> I think this is somewhat pessimistic, register fills for a predicated
>> >> instruction won't be predicated AFAIK, so it should be possible to reuse
>> >> them, only the destination of a predicated write cannot be reused.
>> >>
>> >> > +
>> >> > + /* If the previous instruction writes to scratch_reg then we can reuse
>> >> > + * it if the channels we wrote are compatible with our read mask.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + if (prev_inst->dst.file == GRF && prev_inst->dst.reg == scratch_reg) {
>> >> > + return (brw_mask_for_swizzle(inst->src[i].swizzle) &
>> >> > + ~prev_inst->dst.writemask) == 0;
>> >> > + }
>> >> > +
>> >> > + if (prev_inst->opcode == SHADER_OPCODE_GEN4_SCRATCH_WRITE ||
>> >> > + prev_inst->opcode == SHADER_OPCODE_GEN4_SCRATCH_READ)
>> >> > + continue;
>> >> > +
>> >> I'm not sure I see why you need to treat scratch reads and writes
>> >> specially here. AFAICT if you come across one for the same scratch_reg
>> >> it won't make a difference for the code below, and if you come across
>> >> one for a different register the condition you wanted to check (the same
>> >> register is reused for a number of consecutive instructions) may no
>> >> longer hold, so you may as well return.
>> >>
>> >> > + /* Check that the previous instruction reads scratch_reg, if so, continue
>> >> > + * looping. Otherwise it means that we got here from
>> >> > + * evaluate_spill_costs and this is the point at which we will emit an
>> >> > + * unspill for the register passed in scratch_reg, in which case we can
>> >> > + * only reuse it if all other instructions in between have read
>> >> > + * scratch_reg.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + int n;
>> >> > + for (n = 0; n < 3; n++) {
>> >> > + if (prev_inst->src[n].file == GRF &&
>> >> > + prev_inst->src[n].reg == scratch_reg) {
>> >> > + prev_inst_read_scratch_reg = true;
>> >> > + break;
>> >> > + }
>> >> > + }
>> >> > + if (n == 3) {
>> >> > + return prev_inst_read_scratch_reg;
>> >> > + }
>> >> > + }
>> >> > +
>> >> > + return false;
>> >>
>> >> Shouldn't this return prev_inst_read_scratch_reg?
>> >>
>> >> > +}
>> >> > +
>> >> > void
>> >> > vec4_visitor::evaluate_spill_costs(float *spill_costs, bool *no_spill)
>> >> > {
>> >> > @@ -281,9 +370,15 @@ vec4_visitor::evaluate_spill_costs(float *spill_costs, bool *no_spill)
>> >> > foreach_block_and_inst(block, vec4_instruction, inst, cfg) {
>> >> > for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
>> >> > if (inst->src[i].file == GRF) {
>> >> > - spill_costs[inst->src[i].reg] += loop_scale;
>> >> > - if (inst->src[i].reladdr)
>> >> > - no_spill[inst->src[i].reg] = true;
>> >> > + /* We will only unspill src[i] it it wasn't unspilled for the
>> >> > + * previous instruction, in which case we'll just reuse the scratch
>> >> > + * reg for this instruction.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + if (!can_use_scratch_for_source(inst, i, inst->src[i].reg)) {
>> >> > + spill_costs[inst->src[i].reg] += loop_scale;
>> >> > + if (inst->src[i].reladdr)
>> >> > + no_spill[inst->src[i].reg] = true;
>> >> > + }
>> >> > }
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > @@ -342,19 +437,37 @@ vec4_visitor::spill_reg(int spill_reg_nr)
>> >> > unsigned int spill_offset = last_scratch++;
>> >> >
>> >> > /* Generate spill/unspill instructions for the objects being spilled. */
>> >> > + int scratch_reg = -1;
>> >> > foreach_block_and_inst(block, vec4_instruction, inst, cfg) {
>> >> > + /* We don't spill registers used for scratch */
>> >> > + if (inst->opcode == SHADER_OPCODE_GEN4_SCRATCH_READ ||
>> >> > + inst->opcode == SHADER_OPCODE_GEN4_SCRATCH_WRITE)
>> >> > + continue;
>> >> > +
>> >> For that reason you'll never see a match in the loop below for scratch
>> >> reads and writes, and it should be a harmless no-op.
>> >>
>> >> > for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
>> >> > if (inst->src[i].file == GRF && inst->src[i].reg == spill_reg_nr) {
>> >> > - src_reg spill_reg = inst->src[i];
>> >> > - inst->src[i].reg = alloc.allocate(1);
>> >> > - dst_reg temp = dst_reg(inst->src[i]);
>> >> > -
>> >> > - emit_scratch_read(block, inst, temp, spill_reg, spill_offset);
>> >> > + if (scratch_reg == -1 ||
>> >> > + !can_use_scratch_for_source(inst, i, scratch_reg)) {
>> >> > + /* We need to unspill anyway so make sure we read the full vec4
>> >> > + * in any case. This way, the cached register can be reused
>> >> > + * for consecutive instructions that read different channels of
>> >> > + * the same vec4.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > + scratch_reg = alloc.allocate(1);
>> >> > + src_reg temp = inst->src[i];
>> >> > + temp.reg = scratch_reg;
>> >> > + temp.swizzle = BRW_SWIZZLE_XYZW;
>> >> > + emit_scratch_read(block, inst,
>> >> > + dst_reg(temp), inst->src[i], spill_offset);
>> >> > + }
>> >> > + assert(scratch_reg != -1);
>> >> > + inst->src[i].reg = scratch_reg;
>> >> > }
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > if (inst->dst.file == GRF && inst->dst.reg == spill_reg_nr) {
>> >> > emit_scratch_write(block, inst, spill_offset);
>> >> > + scratch_reg = inst->dst.reg;
>> >> > }
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > 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/20150902/614e5160/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the mesa-dev
mailing list