[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 00/15] GLSL memory allocation rework for faster compilation

[Marek Olšák]

I prefer some of my GLSL fixes in 1-4 over JP's changes, because they seem
cleaner to me.

Marek

On Oct 10, 2016 1:38 PM, "Tapani Pälli" <tapani.palli at intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 10/10/2016 02:27 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2016 01:38 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/08/2016 06:58 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI, we use ralloc for a lot more than just the glsl compiler so the
>>>>>>> first few changes make me a bit nervous.  There was someone working
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> making our driver more I undefined-memory-friendly but I don't know
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> happened to those patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's bunch of patches like that in this series:
>>>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2016-June/120445.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it looks like it just never landed as would have required more testing
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> misc drivers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can land at least some of the patches from that series. We still
>>>>> have to replace all non-GLSL uses of DECLARE_RALLOC.. with
>>>>> DECLARE_RZALLOC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, people can still give Rbs on all patches except 5. This rzalloc
>>>> thing isn't an issue and can be dealt with in a separate series (it
>>>> can be done after this series lands).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree these issues do not block review of the series. We just need to
>>> make
>>> sure it is absolutely safe before landing.
>>>
>>> As concrete example I got following segfault when I applied this series
>>> which is directly related to rzalloc issues. This was with
>>> 'shader_freeze'
>>> program, description in bug #94477 has link and build instructions for
>>> this
>>> if you want to try. When I applied JP's patches 4,5,6 (nir, i965_vec4,
>>> i965_fs changes) this segfault disappears.
>>>
>>
>> I meant that this series is safe to land without patch 5. Did you test
>> it without patch 5?
>>
>>
> Ah sorry I managed to miss that. Now I did test and when reverting patch 5
> this test passes fine. Makes sense to do patch 5 as a separate step when
> JP's changes land.
>
> // Tapani
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20161010/0c7a56dd/attachment-0001.html>