[Piglit] [PATCH] cl: Add test for MUBUF access with a negative vaddr

[Matt Arsenault]

ping

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 14:01, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ping
> 
>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 17:20, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Explanation in test comment.
>> ---
>> .../program/execute/amdgcn-mubuf-negative-vaddr.cl | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 tests/cl/program/execute/amdgcn-mubuf-negative-vaddr.cl
>> 
>> diff --git a/tests/cl/program/execute/amdgcn-mubuf-negative-vaddr.cl b/tests/cl/program/execute/amdgcn-mubuf-negative-vaddr.cl
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000..21f11bf66
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tests/cl/program/execute/amdgcn-mubuf-negative-vaddr.cl
>> @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
>> +>/*!
>> +
>> +[config]
>> +name: MUBUF stack addressing behavior
>> +clc_version_min: 10
>> +
>> +[test]
>> +name: MUBUF negative buffer offsets
>> +kernel_name: negative_mubuf_vaddr
>> +dimensions: 1
>> +global_size: 16 0 0
>> +
>> +arg_out: 0 buffer int[16]        \
>> +  5 5 5 5 \
>> +  5 5 5 5 \
>> +  5 5 5 5 \
>> +  5 5 5 5
>> +
>> +!*/
>> +
>> +// Prior to gfx9, MUBUF instructions with the vaddr offset enabled
>> +// would always perform a range check. If a negative vaddr base index
>> +// was used, this would fail the range check. The overall address
>> +// computation would compute a valid address, but this doesn't happen
>> +// due to the range check. For out-of-bounds MUBUF loads, a 0 is
>> +// returned.
>> +//
>> +// Therefore it should be safe to fold any VGPR offset on gfx9 into
>> +// the MUBUF vaddr, but not on older subtargets which can only do this
>> +// if the sign bit is known 0.
>> +kernel void negative_mubuf_vaddr(global int* out0)
>> +{
>> +    volatile int array[16];
>> +
>> +    int id = get_global_id(0);
>> +    for (int i = 0; i < 16; ++i)
>> +    {
>> +        array[i] = i + 1;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    // Directly addressing the same buffer address works without using vaddr:
>> +    //
>> +    // buffer_load_dword v2, off, s[0:3], s11 offset:20
>> +    // out0[id] = array[4];
>> +
>> +
>> +    // But having a negative computed base index would fail:
>> +    // v_mov_b32_e32 v0, -8
>> +    // v_lshlrev_b32_e32 v0, 2, v0
>> +    // v_add_i32_e32 v0, vcc, 4, v0
>> +    // buffer_load_dword v2, v0, s[0:3], s11 offen offset:48
>> +
>> +#ifdef __AMDGCN__
>> +    // Obscure the value so it can't be folded with other constant or
>> +    // make known bits assumptions.
>> +    int offset;
>> +    __asm volatile("v_mov_b32 %0, -8" : "=v"(offset));
>> +#else
>> +    int offset = -8;
>> +#endif
>> +    out0[id] = array[offset + 12];
>> +}
>> -- 
>> 2.11.0
>> 
>