<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:15 AM Francisco Jerez <<a href="mailto:currojerez@riseup.net">currojerez@riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Jason Ekstrand <<a href="mailto:jason@jlekstrand.net" target="_blank">jason@jlekstrand.net</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> The pass was discovered to cause problems with the MUL+MACH combination<br>
> we emit for nir_[iu]mul_high. In an experimental branch of mine, I ran<br>
> into issues where the MUL+MACH ended up using a strided source due to<br>
> working on half of a uint64_t and the new lowering pass helpfully tried<br>
> to fix the multiply which wrote to an unstriated accumulator.<br>
<br>
> Not only did the multiply not need to be fixed<br>
<br>
That's far from clear, and inconsistent with what this patch is doing,<br>
since the fix is still being applied (Wouldn't it make sense to clarify<br>
that in the commit message since it's slightly misleading about it?).<br>
<br>
The original instruction was technically violating the first CHV/BXT<br>
double-precision regioning restriction before the pass was introduced,<br>
that's why it made any changes in the first place. The integer<br>
multiplication lowering code was just lucky enough that violating the<br>
restriction didn't matter in this case, but I doubt that the reason for<br>
that had anything to do with the accumulator being the explicit<br>
destination...<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Explicit, no, but I do suspect that does have to do with it being the accumulator. This restriction isn't theoretical; if you violate it with a GRF, you will get data corruption; I've seen it myself. I could see two possible explanations:</div><div><br></div><div> However, accumulators are a special case that does appear to work.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> but the "fix" ended up breaking it because a MOV to the accumulator is<br>
> not the same as using it as a multiply destination due to the magic<br>
> way the 33/64 bits of the<br>
<br>
Technically it has 66 bits (it wasn't a typo when I said that to you<br>
earlier on IRC). That's how it can t hold the result of a SIMD16<br>
16x16-bit integer multiplication with 33-bit signed precision per scalar<br>
component.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, there are 33 bits available for WxW multiplies but this is dealing with a DxD multiply which only has 64 bits according to this bit of bspec text:<br></div><div><br></div><div>As there are only 64 bits per channel in DWord mode (D and UD), it is
sufficient to store the multiplication result of two DWord operands as
long as the post source modified sources are still within 32 bits. If
any one source is type UD and is negated, the negated result becomes 33
bits. The DWord multiplication result is then 65 bits, bigger than the
storage capacity of accumulators. Consequently, the results are
unpredictable.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> accumulator are handled for different instruction types.<br>
><br>
> Fixes: efa4e4bc5fc "intel/fs: Introduce regioning lowering pass"<br>
> Cc: Francisco Jerez <<a href="mailto:currojerez@riseup.net" target="_blank">currojerez@riseup.net</a>><br>
> ---<br>
> src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_lower_regioning.cpp | 16 +++++++++++++++-<br>
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)<br>
><br>
> diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_lower_regioning.cpp b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_lower_regioning.cpp<br>
> index cc4163b4c2c..b8a89e82272 100644<br>
> --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_lower_regioning.cpp<br>
> +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_lower_regioning.cpp<br>
> @@ -53,7 +53,13 @@ namespace {<br>
> unsigned<br>
> required_dst_byte_stride(const fs_inst *inst)<br>
> {<br>
> - if (type_sz(inst->dst.type) < get_exec_type_size(inst) &&<br>
> + if (inst->dst.is_accumulator()) {<br>
> + /* Even though it's not explicitly documented in the PRMs or the<br>
> + * BSpec, writes to the accumulator appear to not need any special<br>
> + * treatment with respect too their destination stride alignment.<br>
> + */<br>
<br>
The code is not really doing what the comment says. The<br>
destination/source stride alignment restriction will still be honored<br>
for this instruction. It's just that the destination *has* to be left<br>
untouched while doing that in the case of an integer MUL/MACH<br>
instruction (that's the only reason I asked you to return the original<br>
byte stride of the destination), because splitting off the region into a<br>
MOV would lead to data loss due to the inconsistent semantics of the<br>
accumulator destination for integer MUL/MACH (which update the whole 66<br>
bits) and every other integer arithmetic instruction (which update the<br>
bottom 33 bits and *apparently* leave the top 33 bits uninitialized) --<br>
IOW this is only here so that the assert below doesn't fire.<br>
<br>
> + return inst->dst.stride * type_sz(inst->dst.type);<br>
> + } else if (type_sz(inst->dst.type) < get_exec_type_size(inst) &&<br>
<br>
The code changes themselves are just as I wished, so this gets my:<br>
<br>
Reviewed-by: Francisco Jerez <<a href="mailto:currojerez@riseup.net" target="_blank">currojerez@riseup.net</a>><br>
<br>
assuming that you clarify the commit message and comment above.<br>
<br>
> !is_byte_raw_mov(inst)) {<br>
> return get_exec_type_size(inst);<br>
> } else {<br>
> @@ -316,6 +322,14 @@ namespace {<br>
> bool<br>
> lower_dst_region(fs_visitor *v, bblock_t *block, fs_inst *inst)<br>
> {<br>
> + /* We cannot replace the result of an integer multiply which writes the<br>
> + * accumulator because MUL+MACH pairs act on the accumulator as a 64-bit<br>
> + * value whereas the MOV will act on only 32 or 33 bits of the<br>
> + * accumulator.<br>
> + */<br>
> + assert(inst->opcode != BRW_OPCODE_MUL || !inst->dst.is_accumulator() ||<br>
> + brw_reg_type_is_floating_point(inst->dst.type));<br>
> +<br>
> const fs_builder ibld(v, block, inst);<br>
> const unsigned stride = required_dst_byte_stride(inst) /<br>
> type_sz(inst->dst.type);<br>
> -- <br>
> 2.20.1<br>
</blockquote></div></div>