On 27 April 2016 at 11:00, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So far I've set the execmask to 1 active channel, I'm contemplating >>> changing that >>> though and using less machines. >> Ah yes, I think that would indeed be desirable. > > I'll look into it, though it's not that trivial, since you might have a 1x20x1 > layout, also having to make sure each thread gets the correct system values. > >> >>> >>> Any ideas how to implement this in llvm? :-) 1024 CPU threads? >> I suppose 1024 is really the minimum work size you have to support? >> But since things are always run 4-wide (or 8-wide) that would "only" be >> 256 (or 128) threads. That many threads sound a bit suboptimal to me >> (unless you really have a boatload of cpu cores), but why not - I >> suppose you can always pause some of the threads, not all need to be >> active at the same time. >> Though I wonder what the opencl-on-cpu guys do... > > pocl appears to spawn a number of threads and split the work out amongst > them in the X direction. > > However I'm not seeing how they handle barriers, or if they handle > them correctly at all.
Okay newer versions of pocl seem to have some sort of thread scheduler, that schedule workgroups across up to 8 threads, however I can't see how they deal with barriers still. Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
