On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho < caio.olive...@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > Given the fixes you already made based on my comments. Patches 1-20, > 22-27, 29-43, and 61 (multiview!) are > > Reviewed-by: Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho <caio.olive...@intel.com> > > Patches 46-47 and 49 seem to be valid regardless the rest of the code, > so I'd consider getting them in independently. They are also R-b'ed. > Thanks! > I've skipped 21 and 28 because I wanted to give a deeper look at the > originals. > > From the perspective of someone that is living with deref_vars for > just a short time, I like the idea of removing one special > construction (derefs) and rely on instructions instead. > > Which made me wonder: was there a special factor that led NIR to start > with the "old-school derefs" in the first place? Other day Curro asked > about one of the "selling points" of NIR being it did not have all > those nodes representing dereferences. I digged up an old comment to > what I think he was referring to > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2014- > February/053477.html > > - All the ir_dereference chains blow up the memory usage, and the > constant pointer chasing in the recursive algorithms needed to handle > them is not just cache-unfriendly but "cache-mean." > > How does deref_instructions avoid being "cache-mean" as their > "predecessors"? Was the blow up more a result of how the instructions > were structured than the fact it had those dereferences nodes? > The blow up was mostly due to the fact that GLSL IR uses dereferences for *everything*. NIR, in contrast, uses SSA defs for 95% of all temporary values so there simply aren't as many deref chains in play.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
