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

[Tapani Pälli]

On 10/13/2016 04:20 PM, Juha-Pekka Heikkila wrote:
> I forgot to reply here on the list, I've just been talking about this 
> with Tapani face to face.
>
> My series rebased and fixed on top of mesa master branch from 
> yesterday is here
> https://github.com/juhapekka/juha_mesaexperimentals/tree/jenkins
>
> Tapani was already taking rebased patches from above branch.
>
> I originally stopped working on this set because I felt there was too 
> much uncertainty if all places needed to be fixed could be found 
> easily. Anyway, if you skip my patch for changes in glsl please check 
> you have all places somehow handled which I had patched. All those 
> patched places I dug up with Valgrind so they're 'real deal' where 
> will get segfaults.
>

I have now all CI regressions (there were 26 in total) passing with this 
set:

https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~tpalli/mesa/log/?h=jenkins

but I'm planning still todo some validation with apps too, as you 
mentioned today as example Manhattan used to trigger some issues.

> /Juha-Pekka
>
> On 10.10.2016 14:52, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:maraeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>                     On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tapani Pälli
>>                     <tapani.palli at intel.com 
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-dev mailing list
>> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev