On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: >>> Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: >>>>> Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> That's not necessarily true - you could want to spill a trivially >>>>>> colored register that interferes with a non trivially colored >>>>>> register, especially if the spill cost of the non trivially colored >>>>>> register is higher than that of the trivially colored register because >>>>>> e.g. the non trivially colored register is used in a loop. Especially, >>>>>> I ran into trouble with the varying packing tests in piglit which >>>>>> after a few rounds of spilling looked something like: >>>>> >>>>> If it's trivially colorable, then when you're trying to get a >>>>> non-conflicting color for a difficult neighbor (an optimistic-coloring >>>>> one near the top of the stack that's triggering the need for spilling), >>>>> it's out consideration because it's deeper in the stack. >>>> >>>> Right... so in that case, can't we just ignore everything on the stack >>>> below the node that couldn't be colored in ra_select()? >>> >>> Yep, that's what the code's doing currently. >> >> No, it's also considering other optimistically colored nodes below the >> one that failed on the stack... see patch 3 in v3 of my series, which >> changes the code to actually do that. > > Oh, I misread you as saying s/couldn't be colored/first couldn't be > trivially colored/. It seems like obviously the behavior we want, to > me.
Cool, then can you put your r-b on the last two patches of the v3 series so we can push it? _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
