On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, I don't know much about how nv50 ir works, but to me this just > seems like a pretty slow implementation of a very limited instruction > scheduler. In addition to the runtime complexity problems you > mentioned, you're going to get a lot more benefit even from a very > simple list scheduler compared to this, and it generally only takes a > few hundred lines to write one. I'd send you some references, but I
I agree with basically all of the above. I really don't think it's worth having this super-partial approach. We need a real scheduler, both pre- and post-ra. Which follows a reasonable strategy. I don't think this "just try to dual issue as much as possible post-ra" attempt really gets at that. It's a neat hack, but ultimately I don't think it's worth having upstream. It's not something that we'll be able to build on and improve -- the underlying approach is too brute force. -ilia _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
