Patches 7 & 8
Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 >?
>
> Because coalescing a size=1 register into part of a size>1 is okay.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I think made this patch a little more confusing that necessary so that
> the next one was much easier to follow. At least, I'm pretty sure. :)
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
