[Mesa-dev] i965/radeonsi use STD430 packing of UBOs by default

[Timothy Arceri]

On 21/08/17 08:58, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Timothy Arceri <tarceri at itsqueeze.com> wrote:
>> On 21/08/17 03:25, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Timothy Arceri <tarceri at itsqueeze.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Shared (the default) and packed layouts are decided by the
>>>> implementation.
>>>> Currently we just pack them using the std140 layout. This change makes it
>>>> so
>>>> we use the slightly more compact std430 layout on i965 and radeonsi.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt this will help many games, but it still seems worth implementing.
>>>> I could only find shaders for a single game in my shader-db collection
>>>> where STD140 layout wasn't explicitly defined for UBOs, and even there
>>>> it was using vec4s so there would be no improvement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why having a separate codepath that only 2 drivers will use If it
>>> doesn't improve any app?
>>
>>
>> I didn't say it doesn't improve any apps, presumably something uses the
>> shared and packed layout provided by the spec. I just didn't seen it in my
>> quick search of my shader-db collection.
>>
>> Ignoring how many apps use it, it's not much of a separate path it mostly
>> just reuses the existing paths for SSBOs. Also if we can get SNB fixed up
>> and add support to the remaining Gallium drivers that support ubos than we
>> can drop the old paths entirely.
> 
> All Gallium drivers will never support it (unless you intent to add
> support by yourself).
> 
>>
>> For radeonsi once I get LOAD working with my uniform packing series that
>> would just leave immediates using the fetch_constant() code path.
> 
> What about Nine and VDPAU/VAAPI/OpenMAX also using CONST?
> 
> Marek
> 

I wrote the series based on Nicolai's feedback as a way to get more 
familiar with the LOAD implementation so I could use it with constant 
packing.

Using LOAD for UBOs was suggested by Nicolai, the Intel guys are 
interested in enabling this feature. Can you please point out exactly 
what patches you have concern over and maybe we can focus on that?