On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net>
wrote:
> Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes:
>
> > I'm still a little pensive. But
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstr...@intel.com>
> >
> Thanks.
>
> > Now for a little aside. I have come to the conclusion that I made a
> grave
> > mistake when I did the LOAD_PAYLOAD stuff. In retrospect, I should have
> > just subclassed fs_inst for load_payload. The problem is that we need to
> > snag a bunch of information for the sources when we create the
> > load_payload. In particular, we need to know the width of the source so
> > that we know how much space it consumes in the payload and we need to
> know
> > the information required to properly re-create the mov such as
> > force_sechalf and force_writemask_all. Really, in order to do things
> > properly, we need to gather this information *before* we do any
> > optimizations. The nasty pile of code that you're editing together with
> > the "effective_width" parameter is a lame attempt to capture/reconstruct
> > this information. Really, we should just subclass, capture the
> information
> > up-front, and do it properly.
> >
> Yes, absolutely, this lowering pass is a real mess. There are four more
> unreviewed patches in the mailing list fixing bugs of the metadata
> guessing of lower_load_payload() [1][2][3][4], you may want to take a
> look at them. There are more bugs I'm aware of but it didn't seem
> practical to fix them.
>
Yeah, Matt pointed me at those. I'll give them a look later today.
> That said, I don't think it would be worth subclassing fs_inst.
>
> My suggestion would have been to keep it simple and lower LOAD_PAYLOAD
> into a series of MOVs with force_writemask_all enabled in all cases,
> simply rely on the optimizer to eliminate those where possible. Then
> get rid of the metadata and effective_width guessing. Instead agree on
> immediates and uniforms being exec_size-wide by convention
> (i.e. LOAD_PAYLOAD's exec_size rather than the original instruction's),
> then prevent constant propagation from propagating an immediate load
> into a LOAD_PAYLOAD if it would lead to a change in the semantics of the
> program, and maybe just run constant propagation after lowering so we
> can be sure those cases are cleaned up properly where register coalesce
> isn't enough.
>
First off, simply setting force_writemask_all isn't an option. Consider
the following scenario:
a = foo;
if (bar) {
b = 7;
} else {
use(a);
}
use(b);
If "use(a)" is the last use of the variable a, then the live ranges of a
and b don't actually over-lap and we can assign a and b to the same
register. However, if force_writemask_all is set on b, it will destroy the
value in a before its last use. Right now, we don't actually do this
because our liveness analysis pass flattens everything so it will think
that b and a over-lap even though they don't. However, if we ever decide
to make the liveness information more accurate, having a pile of
force_writemask_all instructions will be a major problem. So, while it is
*technically* safe for now, it's a really bad idea in the long-term.
Regarding the other suggestion of just requiring width == exec_size for
immediates and uniforms, that seems pretty reasonable to me. I'd like to
know what it will do to optimizations, but it seems ok initially. I'm
still a bigger fan of just subclassing and stashing everything we need to
know up-front. If we do it right, the only things that will actually need
to know about the subclass are the function for creating a LOAD_PAYLOAD and
lower_load_payloads.
--Jason
>
> [1]
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-January/074614.html
> [2]
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-February/076094.html
> [3]
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-February/076097.html
> [4]
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-February/076098.html
>
>
> > --Jason
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Francisco Jerez <
> >>> curroje...@riseup.net>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Francisco Jerez <
> >>> curroje...@riseup.net>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> Hey Matt,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Francisco Jerez <
> >>> >> curroje...@riseup.net>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> MRFs cannot be read from anyway so they cannot possibly be a
> >>> valid
> >>> >> >> >> source of LOAD_PAYLOAD.
> >>> >> >> >> ---
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > The function only seems to test inst->dst.file == MRF. I don't
> >>> see any
> >>> >> >> > code for handling MRF sources. What am I missing?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> That test is for "handling" MRF sources -- More precisely, it's
> >>> >> >> collecting the writemask and half flags for MRF writes, which can
> >>> only
> >>> >> >> possibly be useful if we're going to use them later on to read
> >>> something
> >>> >> >> out of an MRF into a payload, which we shouldn't be doing in the
> >>> first
> >>> >> >> place.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Aside from simplifying the function somewhat, that allows us to
> >>> drop the
> >>> >> >> 16 register gap reserved for MRFs at register offset zero, what
> will
> >>> >> >> allow us to drop the vgrf_to_reg[] offset calculation completely
> >>> (also
> >>> >> >> in split_virtual_grfs()) in a future patch (not sent for review
> >>> yet).
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > No, we do read from MRF's sort-of... Send messages have an
> implicit
> >>> >> "read"
> >>> >> > from an MRF.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Heh, and that's pretty much the only way you "read" from it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > This was written precicely so that we could use LOAD_PAYLOAD
> >>> >> > to build MRF payloads. We do on pre-GEN6.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> I'm aware, but you don't need any of this meta-data to LOAD_PAYLOAD
> >>> >> *into* an MRF, and LOAD_PAYLOAD with an MRF as source should be
> illegal
> >>> >> anyway.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > And no one is using it that way. All of the metadata checks you are
> >>> > deleting are checks on the *destination*.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Didn't you write this code yourself? The only use for the collected
> >>> metadata is initializing the instruction flags of the MOVs subsequent
> >>> LOAD_PAYLOAD instructions are lowered to, based on the metadata already
> >>> collected for its source registers, which can never be MRFs, so the
> >>> metadata you collect from MRF writes is never actually used.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Right... I misred something initially. Yes, we should never be tracking
> >> MRF's as a source of a LOAD_PAYLOAD. I'll give it a better look a bit
> >> later, but it looks better.
> >>
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
