On Wed, 2019-03-06 at 09:21 +0100, Iago Toral wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 07:35 +0100, Iago Toral wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 15:36 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 19:04 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > > > Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 09:54 -0800, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > > > > > Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 13:47 -0800, Francisco Jerez
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 14:54 -0800, Francisco Jerez
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Iago Toral Quiroga <ito...@igalia.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > src/intel/compiler/brw_eu_validate.c | 64
> > > > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > > > > src/intel/compiler/test_eu_validate.cpp | 122
> > > > > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 1
> > > > > > > > > > > > deletion(-
> > > > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > a/src/intel/compiler/brw_eu_validate.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > b/src/intel/compiler/brw_eu_validate.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 000a05cb6ac..203641fecb9 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_eu_validate.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_eu_validate.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -531,7 +531,69 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > general_restrictions_based_on_operand_types(con
> > > > > > > > > > > > st
> > > > > > > > > > > > struct
> > > > > > > > > > > > gen_device_info *devinf
> > > > > > > > > > > > exec_type_size == 8 && dst_type_size ==
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4)
> > > > > > > > > > > > dst_type_size = 8;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - if (exec_type_size > dst_type_size) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > + /* From the BDW+ PRM:
> > > > > > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * "There is no direct conversion from
> > > > > > > > > > > > HF
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > DF
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > DF to
> > > > > > > > > > > > HF.
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * There is no direct conversion from
> > > > > > > > > > > > HF
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > Q/UQ or
> > > > > > > > > > > > Q/UQ to
> > > > > > > > > > > > HF."
> > > > > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > > > > + enum brw_reg_type src0_type =
> > > > > > > > > > > > brw_inst_src0_type(devinfo,
> > > > > > > > > > > > inst);
> > > > > > > > > > > > + ERROR_IF(brw_inst_opcode(devinfo, inst) ==
> > > > > > > > > > > > BRW_OPCODE_MOV
> > > > > > > > > > > > &&
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why is only the MOV instruction handled here and
> > > > > > > > > > > below? Aren't
> > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > instructions able to do implicit
> > > > > > > > > > > conversions? Probably
> > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > to deal with two sources rather than one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This comes from the programming notes of the MOV
> > > > > > > > > > instruction
> > > > > > > > > > (Volume
> > > > > > > > > > 2a, Command Reference - Instructions - MOV), so it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > specifically for the MOV instruction. I should
> > > > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > clear in the comment.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Maybe the one above is specified in the MOV page
> > > > > > > > > only,
> > > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > an oversight (If these restrictions were really
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > MOV
> > > > > > > > > instruction, what would prevent you from implementing
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > conversions
> > > > > > > > > through a different instruction? E.g. "ADD dst:df,
> > > > > > > > > src:hf,
> > > > > > > > > 0"
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > would be substantially more efficient than what
> > > > > > > > > you're
> > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > PATCH
> > > > > > > > > 02)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Instructions that take HF can only be strictly HF or
> > > > > > > > mix
> > > > > > > > F
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > HF
> > > > > > > > (mixed mode float), with MOV being the only exception.
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > any instruction like the one you use above are invalid.
> > > > > > > > Maybe
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > validate explicitly that instructions that use HF are
> > > > > > > > strictly
> > > > > > > > HF
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > mixed-float mode only?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you're acknowledging that the conversions checked
> > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > illegal
> > > > > > > whether the instruction is a MOV or something
> > > > > > > else. Where
> > > > > > > are we
> > > > > > > preventing instructions other than MOV with such
> > > > > > > conversions
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > accepted by the validator?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We aren't, because the validator is not checking, in
> > > > > > general,
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > accepted type combinations for specific instructions
> > > > > > anywhere
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > far as
> > > > > > I can see.
> > > > >
> > > > > Luckily these type conversion restrictions aren't really
> > > > > specific
> > > > > to
> > > > > any
> > > > > instruction AFAICT, even though they only seem to be
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > explicitly for the MOV instruction...
> > > > >
> > > > > > If we want to start doing this with HF conversions
> > > > > > specifically, I
> > > > > > guess it is fine, but in case it is not clear, I think it
> > > > > > won't
> > > > > > bring
> > > > > > any immediate benefits with the VK_KHR_shader_float16_int8
> > > > > > implementation since this series only ever emits
> > > > > > conversions
> > > > > > involving
> > > > > > HF operands via MOV instructions,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I can see that's the intention of this series, but how
> > > > > can
> > > > > you
> > > > > make
> > > > > sure that nothing in the optimizer is breaking your
> > > > > assumption
> > > > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > don't add some validator code to verify the claim of your
> > > > > last
> > > > > paragraph?
> > > > >
> > > > > > which is why I thought that validating that no direct MOV
> > > > > > conversions
> > > > > > from DF/Q types ever happen was useful, since we have code
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > driver to handle this scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still don't understand why you want to implement the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > restriction
> > > > > > > twice, once for MOV and once for all other mixed-mode
> > > > > > > instructions. How
> > > > > > > is that more convenient?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The restrictions based on operand types that are checked in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > validator are specific to Byte or cases where the execution
> > > > > > type is
> > > > > > larger than the destination stride, for which mixed float
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > different set of restrictions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, for mixed float we have this rule:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "In Align1, destination stride can be smaller than
> > > > > > execution
> > > > > > type"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which overrides this other from "General restrictions based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > operand
> > > > > > types":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Destination stride must be equal to the ratio of the sizes
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > execution data type to the destination type"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I thought that it would make things easier to keep all
> > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > for mixed float separate and make sure that we skipped
> > > > > > mixed
> > > > > > float
> > > > > > instructions in
> > > > > > general_restrictions_based_on_operand_types()
> > > > > > so we
> > > > > > avoid having to add code to skip individual general
> > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > that that are overriden for mixed float mode anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine with that, but it doesn't seem like what this patch
> > > > > is
> > > > > doing...
> > > > > Isn't it adding code to validate mixed-mode float MOV
> > > > > instructions in
> > > > > general_restrictions_based_on_operand_types()?
> > > >
> > > > I guess this could be arguable, but I was not considering
> > > > conversion
> > > > MOVs to be mixed-float instructions. There are two reasons for
> > > > this:
> > > >
> > > > A conversion MOV involving F/HF doesn't seem to be
> > > > fundamentally
> > > > different from any other conversion instruction involving other
> > > > types,
> > > > other than the requirement of aligning the destination to a
> > > > Dword,
> > > > which is not a resriction explictly made for mixed-float mode.
> > > >
> > > > Then, for mixed-float mode, there is this other rule:
> > > >
> > > > "In Align1, destination stride can be smaller than execution
> > > > type.
> > > > When
> > > > destination is stride of 1, 16 bit packed data
> > > > is updated on the destination. However, output packed f16 data
> > > > must
> > > > be
> > > > oword aligned, no oword crossing in
> > > > packed f16."
> > > >
> > > > Which contradicts the other rule that conversions from F to HF
> > > > need
> > > > to
> > > > be DWord aligned on the destination.
> > > >
> > > > So it seems to me that conversion MOVs are not following the
> > > > same
> > > > principles of mixed-float instructions and we should skip
> > > > validating
> > > > mixed-float restrictions for them. What do you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That all seems fairly ambiguous... And the restriction on DWORD
> > > alignment for conversions includes a mixed-mode ADD instruction
> > > among
> > > the examples, so I'm skeptical that MOV could be truly
> > > fundamentally
> > > different.
> >
> > Ok... in that case what do we do about the mixed-float restriction
> > I
> > quoted above? Since it is incompatible with the mixed-float MOV
> > conversion I guess we only have two options: ether we don't
> > validate
> > it
> > at all or we only validate it for mixed-float instructions that are
> > not
> > MOV. I guess we can do the latter?
>
> Also, related to this, if we consider implicit conversions in 2-src
> instructions to also be a target of the generic rules for conversions
> to HF described for CHV and SKL+, then doesn't that imply that all
> mixed-float instructions are conversions and subject to those rules?
> For example:
>
> ADD dst:hf src0:f src1:f
> ADD dst:hf src0:hf src1:f
> ADD dst:hf src0:f src1:hf
>
> In all 3 instructions above the execution type is F. Should we
> consider
> all of them implicit conversions? That would mean that any mixed-
> float
> instruction with HF destination is an implicit conversion from F to
> HF
> and therefore would be subject to the generic rules for those
> conversions, which at least in the case of CHV and SKL+ involves
> DWord
> alignment on the destination, or in other words: no mixed-float
> instruction can have packed fp16 destinations. But that seems to
> contradict what various mixed-float restrictions present in the docs
> that suggest that packed fp16 destinations are possible with mixed-
> float mode. Here are some examples:
>
> "No SIMD16 in mixed mode when destination is packed f16 for both
> Align1
> and Align16"
>
> "In Align1, destination stride can be smaller than execution type.
> When
> destination is stride of 1, 16 bit packed data is updated on the
> destination. However, output packed f16 data must be oword aligned,
> no
> oword crossing in packed f16."
>
> "When source is float or half float from accumulator register and
> destination is half float with a stride of 1, the source must
> register
> aligned. i.e., source must have offset zero."
>
> Since I was only considering that conversion rules only applied to
> MOV
> instructions this was not an issue in my series, but if we consider
> that those rules also apply to implicit conversions from other
> instructions then it looks like all these restrictions refer to
> impossible situations, so I am not sure what to do about them...
> should
> we just ignore them in the validator?
And I have just noticed another issue with the idea of considering
direct conversions involving F/HF mixed-float instructions. There is
this other restriction for mixed-float mode:
"No SIMD16 in mixed mode when destination is f32. Instruction Execution
size must be no more than 8."
So if we consider direct HF->F conversions mixed-float instructions
then we would habe to split all of them to be 8-wide. Obviously, I have
not been doing this and I have never seen any issues on any platform
because of this.
Iago
>
> > > > > > Anyway, I'll try to rework the patches to do more generic
> > > > > > validation of
> > > > > > HF conversions like you ask and see what kind of code we
> > > > > > end
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > with.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
