[Mesa-dev] A question about order of st_update_*p

[Marek Olšák]

On Fri., Jul. 26, 2019, 15:58 Lepton Wu, <lepton at chromium.org> wrote:

> If shader A depends on shader B,  should we put st_update_shaderB  in
> front of st_update_shaderA?
>

That's the current order. The order of GPU execution doesn't matter.

M.


> Now the order looks like reversed...
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:34 PM Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The order shouldn't matter, but there can be a reason behind it, e.g. if
> a shader depends on the update of the following shader.
> >
> > Marek
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 7:19 PM Lepton Wu <lepton at chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> In src/mesa/state_tracker/st_atom_list.h,
> >>
> >> Now it's this order:
> >>
> >> ST_STATE(ST_NEW_FS_STATE, st_update_fp)
> >> ST_STATE(ST_NEW_GS_STATE, st_update_gp)
> >> ST_STATE(ST_NEW_TES_STATE, st_update_tep)
> >> ST_STATE(ST_NEW_TCS_STATE, st_update_tcp)
> >> ST_STATE(ST_NEW_VS_STATE, st_update_vp)
> >>
> >> While code in
> >> src/mesa/state_tracker/st_atom.c:
> >>
> >> while (dirty_lo)
> >>      update_functions[u_bit_scan(&dirty_lo)](st);
> >>
> >> That means if will call st_update_fp first and then st_update_gp... etc.
> >>
> >> But this is inconsistent with opengl pipeline: should we reverse the
> >> order here or I missed something?
> >>
> >> Background:
> >>
> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/virgl/virglrenderer/issues/114
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mesa-dev mailing list
> >> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20190726/f0f99941/attachment.html>