On 19.04.2017 10:10, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 04/19/2017 08:40 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 19.04.2017 00:01, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18.04.2017 21:49, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 19 April 2017 at 05:30, Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 04/18/2017 08:14 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 11.04.2017 18:48, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
Bindless sampler/image types are really different from the existing
sampler/image types. They are considered 64-bit unsigned integers,
they can be declared as temporary, shader inputs/outputs and are
non-opaque types.
For these reasons, it looks more convenient to introduce new
internal base types to the GLSL compiler, called
GLSL_TYPE_BINDLESS_SAMPLER and respectively
GLSL_TYPE_BINDLESS_IMAGE.
Sorry for taking so long to get to this series, but could you
explain
the
rationale here a bit more?
No worries, all feedbacks are always welcome, even late. :)
So, the bindless sampler/image types introduced in
ARB_bindless_texture
are
really different from the "standard" ones.
They are considered as 64-bit unsigned integers (not 32-bit) and
they are
non-opaque types. The latter means they can be declared as temporary
variables, as shader inputs/outputs, inside an interface block, etc.
I don't know that that's the best way to think about it at the GLSL
level.
Mostly they're still opaque types, it's just that they can be
explicitly
converted to/from 64-bit ints (or uvec2... not having an interaction
with
GL_ARB_gpu_shader_int64 seems like a spec oversight).
That said, the current sampler/image types are opaque (cf,
glsl_type::is_opaque()) and it seemed quite impossible to change the
glsl_type helpers to fit my needs.
I see no is_opaque, maybe you mean contains_opaque? I agree that it's
annoying that the restrictions expressed in ast_to_hir.cpp need to be
modified. What other helpers are an issue?
I tried many different solutions before figuring this one which seems
better
for some reasons:
- easy to make bindless sampler/image types 64-bit unsigned int
- easy to make bindless sampler/image types non-opaque
- should avoid breakage because the base type is different
- reduce the amount of changes in most places in the compiler
I still don't see a *positive* justification for having the two
different
type families. Where do you actually need to *distinguish* between
bindless
and bound samplers in the compiler? The spec really doesn't make that
distinction at all, except in one single place:
"These modifiers control whether default-block uniforms of
the corresponding types may have their values set via both
UniformHandle* and Uniform1i (bindless_sampler and
bindless_image) or only via Uniform1i (bound_sampler and
bound_image)."
It seems like the only place to distinguish between the two is actually
*outside* the compiler, in the uniforms API. And that's not even
really have
about the *type* of the variable; it's about the variable's memory
layout.
So it really behaves more similarly to the layout qualifiers (offset,
alignment) you have in SSBO and UBO blocks rather than a property of
a type.
So as I see it, this code is messing with the type system for no good
reason, and doing so in a fundamentally incoherent way that goes
against all
that is good and sane in compiler design. And I think it shows.
Consider the
following example shader:
layout (bound_sampler) uniform sampler2D tex_bound;
layout (bindless_sampler) uniform sampler2D tex_bindless;
vec4 f(sampler2D s, ...)
{
return texture2D(s, ...);
}
void main()
{
vec4 a = f(tex_bound, ...);
vec4 b = f(tex_bindless, ...);
}
What's the type of the parameter `s' of function `f'? Will this
compile, and
if so, how?
I guess the answer is: as is, the type is sampler2DBindless, which
makes no
sense whatsoever if the function f appears in a shader which *doesn't*
enable ARB_bindless_texture (which is allowed!). But having the type
of f
depend on whether the extension is enabled makes even *less* sense.
And does it compile? Well, I don't recall seeing code that would
automatically do a type conversion -- you probably either end up
generating
an incorrect compiler error, or you end up with IR that assigns a
value of
bindless-type to a variable of non-bindless-type, or vice versa.
None of this gives me confidence from a compiler design perspective.
What's
left are some vague implementation concerns that I don't understand
yet,
admittedly in part because I haven't tried to implement the
alternative :-)
At the Gallium level, the changes are really small. Basically, if the
type
is a bindless sampler, the ir_dereference variable is visited and
it can
be
considered as PROGRAM_UNIFORM or PROGRAM_TEMPORARY (for shader
inputs/outputs).
Hopefully, you are convinced now. :)
When I did my initial implementation I went with merged types, I don't
think
it was a good idea either. Apart from making old non-bindless
samples take
up
twice as much space, there's a lot or corner cases.
Non-bindless samplers taking up twice as much space for the
accounting of
the default uniform block is something the spec explicitly calls out as
being okay, though.
Even if we decide that it isn't, it's really something that belongs
into
struct gl_uniform_storage during linking, because it's clearly a
property
of... uniform storage layout.
Unless we hit some problem in the future where they need to be the
same
type I'd say this is preferable.
I hope the code sample above is convincing evidence that using
different
types for the same thing just makes no sense.
That's one quirk of this approach - you have to create a combinatorial
explosion of user (and built-in, as you've seen) functions for each
sampler they accept. So if the function takes 5 sampler arguments, you
have to generate 32 copies. However I suspect such functions are rare.
Not sure if Samuel did this, but if he didn't, that's a necessary
component of this approach.
Having it all be one type definitely creates a lot of complications
which you're not seeing here as they're all avoided. Neither approach
is perfect, but I think at the cost of the extra types you end up with
a much more understandable compiler. Here are some odd cases to deal
with for the single type approach:
1. local variables: so doing something like
sampler2D foo = bar;
is not legal without bindless. So imagine you have a function that
uses a sampler local variable,
vec4 f(sampler2D s, ...)
{
sampler2D tex = foo ? s : t;
return texture2D(tex, ...);
}
This function can implicitly not be called with a bound sampler.
Expressing this in a way that the compiler can understand seems like
it couldn't be done without the types being different, or some deeper
analysis being done on the uses of the function's arguments. With the
type explosion approach, this magically works out since there's no
ambiguity about whether a particular sampler is bindless or not.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I suspect we're actually not in
agreement about what the spec allows. My understanding is that calling
that function f with a sampler taken from a bound_sampler uniform is
perfectly legal, i.e. the following code should compile and work as
expected:
layout (bound_sampler) uniform sampler2D tex;
...
f(tex, ...);
How this can work? Passing a uniform into out or inout parameter doesn't
seem to be allowed. At least, the following code doesn't even compile
with NV.
#version 450
#extension GL_ARB_bindless_texture: require
layout (bound_sampler) uniform sampler2D tex;
void f(inout sampler2D p) {}
void main()
{
f(tex);
}
Well, uniforms are read-only variables, so you cannot assign to them
either directly or by passing them to an (in)out parameter. So yes, this
code shouldn't compile. It has nothing to do with bindless vs. bound.
In Ilia's example, p was a plain (in) parameter.
When the compiler sees a local variable assignment
sampler2D foo = bar;
the legality can be decided locally. It is always okay when the
bindless extension is enabled, and it's never okay without. Again, the
"bound_sampler" is not a property of the sampler value itself, it is
"merely" a property of how the sampler is stored (memory layout).
How about interface blocks, structures, inputs/outputs?
What about them specifically? You can never assign to inputs; again,
this is unrelated to bindless vs. bound. When ARB_bindless_texture is
enabled, you can *always* assign to out sampler variables, regardless of
where the right-hand side of the assignment comes from.
For example, the following code should be valid in a vertex shader:
layout (bound_sampler) uniform sampler2D u_sampler;
out sampler2D out_sampler;
void main()
{
out_sampler = u_sampler;
}
Yeah, we could
also decide locally (I'm sure), but having something like:
if (sampler && bindless)
allowed
else
disallowed
in many places in the compiler looks quite ugly.
As compared to the ugliness of type duplication everywhere?
At least I haven't seen anything in the spec to contradict that.
Side note: As far as I can tell, you're even allowed to do:
layout (bound_sampler) uniform sampler2D tex;
...
uvec2 handle = uvec2(tex);
I think this is correct as well, at least it compiles with NV. However,
it makes just no sense to me. The spec says:
"The error INVALID_OPERATION is generated by UniformHandleui64{v}ARB if
the sampler or image uniform being updated has the "bound_sampler" or
"bound_image" layout qualifier.""
So, you can only assign a 32-bit uniform here, converting to a pair of
32-bit will make the .y component 0.
The way I understand it, converting to uvec2 should give a pointer to
the descriptor (at least for the GCN backend).
So bound_samplers are implemented as simply old-style samplers living in
the good old descriptor table. When they are converted to uvec2, we need
to emit code that returns a pointer into that descriptor table. That's a
fully 64-bit value.
Cheers,
Nicolai
Personally, I think that makes a lot of sense at least for GCN:
texture handles are simply pointers to descriptors. Unfortunately, it
seems the spec isn't very explicit about that, and it's also not very
explicit about the extent of validity of the returned handle. Though I
think you can kind of infer that the handle is not expected to be
valid outside the shader invocation, since only handles returned by
Get{Texture,TextureSampler}HandleARB are said to be "stable".
Furthermore, even without the separate function issue, the fact that
local variables are bindless-only creates a host of issues for
figuring out whether an expression is legal. Perhaps this is doable
with a deep scan of any expression assigning to a local variable. But
things with temporary expression like texture2D(foo ? s : t, ...)
could still be annoying. (All solvable, I'm sure.)
2. uniform storage: this is a weaker argument, but I feel like it
needs to be said anyways -- the uniform layout code is subtle and
quick to anger. Even if it is modified appropriately, seems unlikely
for there to be an easily achievable way that non-bindless GPUs are
allowed to not have to waste uniform space. IIRC these uniforms are
allocated real uniform storage (despite never being used), which will
use up precious uniform space for DX9 and earlier GPUs. However if
this were the only thing, it'd be too weak. More of a "pile on top"
kind of thing.
FWIW I'm in favor of the separate type approach, assuming that we all
agree that the user function explosion is acceptable. IMHO it is
though. [And I had been discussing this approach and the alternative
of doing a single type with Samuel for a while before this patchset
was sent out.]
Yeah, from your email I get the impression that there's a genuine
conflict of readings of the spec. If you're right and I'm indeed
reading the spec wrong, I'd be inclined to agree with you. What you're
describing in point 1 really *are* type-level concerns. I just think
that I'm right about the spec and you're not ;-)
FWIW, a big part of what makes me quite certain is that the spec
*replaces* section 4.1.7 (Samplers) in its entirety rather than adding
to it.
Well, if we have questions I can ask the spec authors again (they seem
to be quite responsive). I think we might need some clarification...
Cheers.
Cheers,
Nicolai
Cheers,
-ilia
--
Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
