On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> total instructions in shared programs: 1550048 -> 1549880 (-0.01%)
> instructions in affected programs: 1896 -> 1728 (-8.86%)
> ---
> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp | 80
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
> index 1a16f4e..39041e3 100644
> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs.cpp
> @@ -2265,6 +2265,12 @@ fs_visitor::register_coalesce()
>
> calculate_live_intervals();
>
> + int src_size = 0;
> + int channels_remaining = 0;
> + int reg_from = -1, reg_to = -1;
> + int reg_to_offset[MAX_SAMPLER_MESSAGE_SIZE];
> + fs_inst *mov[MAX_SAMPLER_MESSAGE_SIZE];
> +
> foreach_list_safe(node, &this->instructions) {
> fs_inst *inst = (fs_inst *)node;
>
> @@ -2276,11 +2282,14 @@ fs_visitor::register_coalesce()
> inst->src[0].abs ||
> inst->src[0].smear != -1 ||
> inst->dst.file != GRF ||
> - inst->dst.type != inst->src[0].type ||
> - virtual_grf_sizes[inst->src[0].reg] != 1) {
> + inst->dst.type != inst->src[0].type) {
> continue;
> }
>
> + if (virtual_grf_sizes[inst->src[0].reg] >
> + virtual_grf_sizes[inst->dst.reg])
> + continue;
Why isn't this != rather than >?
> int var_from = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->src[0]);
> int var_to = live_intervals->var_from_reg(&inst->dst);
>
> @@ -2288,31 +2297,58 @@ fs_visitor::register_coalesce()
> !inst->dst.equals(inst->src[0]))
> continue;
>
> - int reg_from = inst->src[0].reg;
> - assert(inst->src[0].reg_offset == 0);
> - int reg_to = inst->dst.reg;
> - int reg_to_offset = inst->dst.reg_offset;
> + if (reg_from != inst->src[0].reg) {
> + reg_from = inst->src[0].reg;
> +
> + src_size = virtual_grf_sizes[inst->src[0].reg];
> + assert(src_size <= MAX_SAMPLER_MESSAGE_SIZE);
> +
> + channels_remaining = src_size;
> + memset(mov, 0, sizeof(mov));
> +
> + reg_to = inst->dst.reg;
> + }
> +
> + if (reg_to != inst->dst.reg)
> + continue;
> +
> + const int offset = inst->src[0].reg_offset;
> + reg_to_offset[offset] = inst->dst.reg_offset;
> + mov[offset] = inst;
> + channels_remaining--;
> +
> + if (channels_remaining)
> + continue;
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < src_size; i++) {
> + if (mov[i])
> + mov[i]->remove();
> + }
>
> foreach_list(node, &this->instructions) {
> fs_inst *scan_inst = (fs_inst *)node;
>
> - if (scan_inst->dst.file == GRF &&
> - scan_inst->dst.reg == reg_from) {
> - scan_inst->dst.reg = reg_to;
> - scan_inst->dst.reg_offset = reg_to_offset;
> - }
> - for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> - if (scan_inst->src[i].file == GRF &&
> - scan_inst->src[i].reg == reg_from) {
> - scan_inst->src[i].reg = reg_to;
> - scan_inst->src[i].reg_offset = reg_to_offset;
> - }
> - }
> - }
> + for (int i = 0; i < src_size; i++) {
> + if (mov[i]) {
Shouldn't this always be taken?
> + if (scan_inst->dst.file == GRF &&
> + scan_inst->dst.reg == reg_from &&
> + scan_inst->dst.reg_offset == i) {
> + scan_inst->dst.reg = reg_to;
> + scan_inst->dst.reg_offset = reg_to_offset[i];
> + }
> + for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
> + if (scan_inst->src[j].file == GRF &&
> + scan_inst->src[j].reg == reg_from &&
> + scan_inst->src[j].reg_offset == i) {
> + scan_inst->src[j].reg = reg_to;
> + scan_inst->src[j].reg_offset = reg_to_offset[i];
> + }
> + }
>
> - inst->remove();
> - progress = true;
> - continue;
> + progress = true;
> + }
> + }
> + }
Couldn't we assign progress = true here instead? Ie, outside 2 of the
3 nested for loops.
> }
>
> if (progress)
> --
> 1.8.3.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
