On 30/08/17 10:25, Marek Olšák wrote:
I have to conclude that I don't see a way to use LOAD with CONSTBUF
and keep the same performance as before. It looks like there are some
deficiencies in our compiler stack that are unfixable in Mesa alone.

Well that's frustrating :( Pretty much makes finishing off uniform packing [1] pointless. Besides an issue with matrices and some tidy ups it was mostly done.

[1] https://github.com/tarceri/Mesa/compare/uniform_packing5


Marek

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Related IRC discussion:

00:01 < mareko> arsenm: what are the chances I can convince you to
allow me to set mayLoad = 0 on s_buffer_load_dword? :) the instruction
always reads from read-only memory with Mesa
00:02 < mareko> apparently, readnone doesn't get through
00:02 < arsenm> mareko: you should get the same effect by having
invariant on the MMO
00:03 < mareko> arsenm: and how would I set invariant on SI.load.const?
00:04 < arsenm> mareko: we create MMOs for a few other intrinsics
already, it should be the same
00:05 < mareko> if only I had time to play with LLVM
00:05 < arsenm> mareko: it looks like that is already done so it might
be a more specific problem
00:05 < arsenm> that rematerializable scalar loads patch is probably
OK now though
00:07 < arsenm> https://reviews.llvm.org/D11621

Marek


On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting. It may be that glsl_to_tgsi uses copy propagation to fold
those CONST loads into operands, which puts them next to their uses in LLVM.

I guess LLVM doesn't understand that s_buffer_load_dword loads from
immutable dereferenceable memory. It would benefit from mayLoad = 0 in
this case I think.

Marek

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com> wrote:


On 24/08/17 18:12, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:

On 24.08.2017 09:45, Timothy Arceri wrote:



On 22/08/17 22:14, Timothy Arceri wrote:

I'm a little unsure what to do with this now. Below is my shader-db
results, the majority of negative changes are from Natural Selection
2.

I looked at some dumps of the worst Natural Selection 2 shaders and
it seems to just be scheduling differences causing the regressions.

I tested with sisched but that just made things even worse.

Obviously we should be aiming to improve the schedulare, but since
this regresses things and I have no evidence of it helping anything
it makes the case for adding it pretty weak.

Thoughts??

PERCENTAGE DELTAS    Shaders     SGPRs     VGPRs SpillSGPR  MaxWaves
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   All affected            5797    2.92     3.05 %    5.04 %   -2.94
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                  72287    0.28 %    0.34 %    0.33 %  -0.21 %

_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev



As far as I can tell this is because after this chnage we end up with
large sections of consecutive loads. Any thoughts on avoid this?


Odd. Do you see the same change in TGSI?

This is one of those things that ideally LLVM would be smart about, but
unfortunately it isn't really.


Yeah I assume it's very doable since SSA makes this stuff reasonably easy to
deal with. However I'm not really sure where to begin, or how welcome a pass
to do this sorting would be. We have a similar pass in nir for moving
comparisons to where they are first used.

The TGSI is introduces an extra temp to store the value of the LOAD, this is
probably what triggers the difference in LLVM.

eg.

  LOAD TEMP[61], UBO[2], IMM[2].yyyy
  LOAD TEMP[62], UBO[2], IMM[1].zzzz
  LOAD TEMP[63], UBO[2], IMM[1].wwww
  LOAD TEMP[64], UBO[2], IMM[2].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[65].x, TEMP[60], TEMP[61]
  DP4 TEMP[66].x, TEMP[60], TEMP[62]
  MOV TEMP[65].y, TEMP[66].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[67].x, TEMP[60], TEMP[63]
  MOV TEMP[65].z, TEMP[67].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[68].x, TEMP[60], TEMP[64]
  MOV TEMP[69].w, TEMP[68].xxxx
  MOV TEMP[69].xyz, TEMP[65].xyzx
  LOAD TEMP[70], UBO[1], IMM[6].yyyy
  LOAD TEMP[71], UBO[1], IMM[6].zzzz
  DP4 TEMP[72].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[70]
  DP4 TEMP[73].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[71]
  LOAD TEMP[74], UBO[1], IMM[6].wwww
  LOAD TEMP[75], UBO[1], IMM[7].xxxx
  LOAD TEMP[76], UBO[1], IMM[7].yyyy
  LOAD TEMP[77], UBO[1], IMM[7].zzzz
  DP4 TEMP[78].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[74]
  DP4 TEMP[79].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[75]
  MOV TEMP[78].y, TEMP[79].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[80].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[76]
  MOV TEMP[78].z, TEMP[80].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[81].x, TEMP[69], TEMP[77]
  MOV TEMP[78].w, TEMP[81].xxxx

vs

  DP4 TEMP[63].x, TEMP[62], CONST[2][0]
  DP4 TEMP[64].x, TEMP[62], CONST[2][1]
  MOV TEMP[63].y, TEMP[64].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[65].x, TEMP[62], CONST[2][2]
  MOV TEMP[63].z, TEMP[65].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[66].x, TEMP[62], CONST[2][3]
  MOV TEMP[67].w, TEMP[66].xxxx
  MOV TEMP[67].xyz, TEMP[63].xyzx
  DP4 TEMP[68].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][14]
  DP4 TEMP[69].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][15]
  DP4 TEMP[70].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][8]
  DP4 TEMP[71].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][9]
  MOV TEMP[70].y, TEMP[71].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[72].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][10]
  MOV TEMP[70].z, TEMP[72].xxxx
  DP4 TEMP[73].x, TEMP[67], CONST[1][11]
  MOV TEMP[70].w, TEMP[73].xxxx
  MOV TEMP[74].xyw, TEMP[70].xyxw


Cheers,
Nicolai

_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Reply via email to