On 8/14/18 5:46 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:


On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 8:28 AM Samuel Pitoiset <samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com <mailto:samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



    On 8/1/18 5:12 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
     > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Andres Rodriguez
    <andre...@gmail.com <mailto:andre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
     >> When WAVE_LIMIT is set, a submission will opt-in for SPI based
    resource
     >> scheduling. Because this mechanism is cooperative, we must
    ensure that
     >> all submissions have this field set, otherwise they will bypass
    resource
     >> arbitration.
     >>
     >> We always hardcode the field to its maximum value, instead of
     >> attempting to calculate an approximate usage. In testing, there
    were no
     >> benefits to using anything other than the maximum.
     >>
     >> Signed-off-by: Andres Rodriguez <andre...@gmail.com
    <mailto:andre...@gmail.com>>
     >> ---
     >>   src/amd/vulkan/si_cmd_buffer.c          | 27
    ++++++++++++++++++---------
     >>   src/gallium/drivers/radeonsi/si_state.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
     >>   2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
     >>
     >> diff --git a/src/amd/vulkan/si_cmd_buffer.c
    b/src/amd/vulkan/si_cmd_buffer.c
     >> index de3b388..ac3dff8 100644
     >> --- a/src/amd/vulkan/si_cmd_buffer.c
     >> +++ b/src/amd/vulkan/si_cmd_buffer.c
     >> @@ -179,7 +179,8 @@ si_emit_compute(struct radv_physical_device
    *physical_device,
     >>          radeon_emit(cs, 0);
     >>          radeon_emit(cs, 0);
     >>
     >> -       radeon_set_sh_reg_seq(cs,
    R_00B854_COMPUTE_RESOURCE_LIMITS, 3);
     >> +       radeon_set_sh_reg_seq(cs, R_00B854_COMPUTE_RESOURCE_LIMITS,
     >> +                             S_00B854_WAVES_PER_SH(0x3));
     >
     > This part doesn't set WAVES_PER_SH. Also, the number 3 would be
    wrong for it.

    This is just a default value for that register. COMPUTE_RESOURCE_LIMITS
    is computed like RadeonSI when we generate the PM4 stuff for compute
    pipelines, and then emitted at dispatch time.

    Do you think we should remove that default value?


Please read the patch again. It's obvious if you know what the seq function does.

Oh right, this is totally wrong...


Marek


     >
     > Marek
     > _______________________________________________
     > mesa-dev mailing list
     > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
    <mailto: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