On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
> Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> (Co-authored by Matt Turner.)
>>>>
>>>> Image atomics, for example, return a value - but the shader may not
>>>> want to use it. We assigned a useless VGRF destination. This seemed
>>>> harmless, but it can actually be quite harmful. The register allocator
>>>> has to assign that VGRF to a real register. It may assign the same
>>>> actual GRF to the destination of an instruction that follows soon after.
>>>>
>>>> This results in a write-after-write (WAW) dependency, and stall.
>>>>
>>>> A number of "Deus Ex: Mankind Divided" shaders use image atomics, but
>>>> don't use the return value. Several of these were hitting WAW stalls
>>>> for nearly 14,000 (poorly estimated) cycles a pop. Making dead code
>>>> elimination null out the destination avoids this issue.
>>>>
>>>> This patch cuts one shader's estimated cycles by -98.39%! Removing the
>>>> message response should also help with data cluster bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> On Skylake:
>>>>
>>>> total instructions in shared programs: 13366907 -> 13363051 (-0.03%)
>>>> instructions in affected programs: 49635 -> 45779 (-7.77%)
>>>> helped: 133
>>>> HURT: 0
>>>>
>>>> total cycles in shared programs: 255433388 -> 248081818 (-2.88%)
>>>> cycles in affected programs: 12370702 -> 5019132 (-59.43%)
>>>> helped: 100
>>>> HURT: 24
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp | 56
>>>> ++++++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
>>>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
>>>> index 930dc733b45..885ae2638a8 100644
>>>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
>>>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_dead_code_eliminate.cpp
>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,43 @@
>>>> * yet in the tail end of this block.
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> +static bool
>>>> +can_eliminate(const fs_inst *inst, BITSET_WORD *flag_live)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return inst->opcode != BRW_OPCODE_IF &&
>>>> + inst->opcode != BRW_OPCODE_WHILE &&
>>>
>>> Isn't this missing a bunch of other control flow instructions that
>>> shouldn't be eliminated? What's going on here, are they also being
>>> DCE'ed? Shouldn't this be !inst->is_control_flow()?
>>
>> IF/WHILE were checked specifically because on Sandybridge they can
>> take a conditional-mod and a null destination.
>>
>> Other control-flow instructions (or even IF & WHILE without cmod) have
>> BAD_FILE as a destination. Now that I think about it, I'm not really
>> sure why if.cmod wouldn't have had a BAD_FILE destination as well...
>>
>
> Heh, that explains why the code above wasn't getting rid of half the
> control flow instructions from the program. Thanks.
>
>> Since we never emit IF/WHILE with cmod anymore, it doesn't matter what
>> we do with the code. We should probably just make sure those
>> instructions have BAD_FILE dest. I'll be happy to clean this up after
>> these patches go in.
>
> I think DCE should just refuse to eliminate any control flow
> instructions, it's wrong regardless of what the destination register
> file is -- Or do BAD_FILE registers have any implications regarding the
> kind of side effects the instructions that carry them may have? I hope
> not.
Right, I don't think BAD_FILE implies anything about side-effects.
Changing it to check is_control_flow would be fine with me.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
