On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:30:47PM -0700, Anuj Phogat wrote:
>> Buffers with Yf/Ys tiling end up using meta upload / download
>> paths or the blitter for cases where they used tiled_memcpy paths
>> in case of Y tiling. This has exposed some bugs in meta path. To
>> avoid any piglit regressions on SKL this patch keeps the Yf/Ys
>> tiling disabled at the moment.
>>
>> V3: Make brw_miptree_choose_tr_mode() actually choose TRMODE. (Ben)
>> Few cosmetic changes.
>> V4: Get rid of brw_miptree_choose_tr_mode().
>> Take care of all tile resource modes {Yf, Ys, none} for all
>> generations at one place.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
>> ---
>> src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c | 97
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> index b9ac4cf..c0ef5cc 100644
>> --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_tex_layout.c
>> @@ -807,27 +807,88 @@ brw_miptree_layout(struct brw_context *brw,
>> enum intel_miptree_tiling_mode requested,
>> struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
>> {
>> - mt->tr_mode = INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_NONE;
>> + const unsigned bpp = mt->cpp * 8;
>> + const bool is_tr_mode_yf_ys_allowed =
>> + brw->gen >= 9 &&
>> + !for_bo &&
>> + !mt->compressed &&
>> + /* Enable YF/YS tiling only for color surfaces because depth and
>> + * stencil surfaces are not supported in blitter using fast copy
>> + * blit and meta PBO upload, download paths. No other paths
>> + * currently support Yf/Ys tiled surfaces.
>> + * FIXME: Remove this restriction once we have a tiled_memcpy()
>> + * path to do depth/stencil data upload/download to Yf/Ys tiled
>> + * surfaces.
>> + */
>
> I think it's more readable to move this comment above the variable
> declaration.
> Up to you though. Also I think "FINISHME" is the more appropriate
> classification
> for this type of thing.
>
Sure.
>> + _mesa_is_format_color_format(mt->format) &&
>> + (requested == INTEL_MIPTREE_TILING_Y ||
>> + requested == INTEL_MIPTREE_TILING_ANY) &&
>
> This is where my tiling flags would have helped a bit since you should be able
> to do flags & Y_TILED :P
>
Yes, I will do a follow up patch to make use of that.
>> + (bpp && is_power_of_two(bpp)) &&
>> + /* FIXME: To avoid piglit regressions keep the Yf/Ys tiling
>> + * disabled at the moment.
>> + */
>> + false;
>
> Also, "FINISHME"
>
>>
>> - intel_miptree_set_alignment(brw, mt);
>> - intel_miptree_set_total_width_height(brw, mt);
>> + /* Lower index (Yf) is the higher priority mode */
>> + const uint32_t tr_mode[3] = {INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_YF,
>> + INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_YS,
>> + INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_NONE};
>> + int i = is_tr_mode_yf_ys_allowed ? 0 : ARRAY_SIZE(tr_mode) - 1;
>>
>> - if (!mt->total_width || !mt->total_height) {
>> - intel_miptree_release(&mt);
>> - return;
>> - }
>> + while (i < ARRAY_SIZE(tr_mode)) {
>> + if (brw->gen < 9)
>> + assert(tr_mode[i] == INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_NONE);
>> + else
>> + assert(tr_mode[i] == INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_YF ||
>> + tr_mode[i] == INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_YS ||
>> + tr_mode[i] == INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_NONE);
>>
>> - /* On Gen9+ the alignment values are expressed in multiples of the block
>> - * size
>> - */
>> - if (brw->gen >= 9) {
>> - unsigned int i, j;
>> - _mesa_get_format_block_size(mt->format, &i, &j);
>> - mt->align_w /= i;
>> - mt->align_h /= j;
>> - }
>> + mt->tr_mode = tr_mode[i];
>> + intel_miptree_set_alignment(brw, mt);
>> + intel_miptree_set_total_width_height(brw, mt);
>>
>> - if (!for_bo)
>> - mt->tiling = brw_miptree_choose_tiling(brw, requested, mt);
>> + if (!mt->total_width || !mt->total_height) {
>> + intel_miptree_release(&mt);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* On Gen9+ the alignment values are expressed in multiples of the
>> + * block size.
>> + */
>> + if (brw->gen >= 9) {
>> + unsigned int i, j;
>> + _mesa_get_format_block_size(mt->format, &i, &j);
>> + mt->align_w /= i;
>> + mt->align_h /= j;
>> + }
>
> Can we just combine this alignment calculation into
> intel_miptree_set_alignment()?
>
No. intel_miptree_set_total_width_height() called after
intel_miptree_set_alignment() needs align_w and align_h values in
pixels. We do the division later to directly use mt->align_w and
mt->align_h while setting the surface state which needs the values
in number of blocks. I have a cleanup patch moving this code to
surface state setup.
>> +
>> + if (!for_bo)
>> + mt->tiling = brw_miptree_choose_tiling(brw, requested, mt);
>
> Perhaps (fwiw, I prefer break instead of returning within a loop, but that's
> just me)?
I'll change it use break.
> /* If there is already a BO, we cannot effect tiling modes */
> if (for_bo)
> break;
>
>
> mt->tiling = brw_miptree_choose_tiling(brw, requested, mt);;
> if (is_tr_mode_yf_ys_allowed) {
> ...
> }
>
> This sort of reflects how I felt earlier about pushing the YF/YS decision into
> choose tiling. The code is heading in that direction though, so I am content.
>
>
>> +
>> + if (is_tr_mode_yf_ys_allowed) {
>> + unsigned int level = 0;
>> + assert(brw->gen >= 9);
>
> I am assert happy, but this is a bit redundant even more my standards :-)
>
right :)
>> +
>> + if (mt->tiling == I915_TILING_Y ||
>> + mt->tiling == (I915_TILING_Y | I915_TILING_X) ||
>> + mt->tr_mode == INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_NONE) {
>> + /* FIXME: Don't allow YS tiling at the moment. Using 64KB tiling
>> + * for small textures might result in to memory wastage. Revisit
>> + * this condition when we have more information about the
>> specific
>> + * cases where using YS over YF will be useful.
>> + */
>> + if (mt->tr_mode != INTEL_MIPTREE_TRMODE_YS)
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + /* Failed to use selected tr_mode. Free up the memory allocated
>> + * for miptree levels in intel_miptree_total_width_height().
>> + */
>> + for (level = mt->first_level; level <= mt->last_level; level++) {
>> + free(mt->level[level].slice);
>> + mt->level[level].slice = NULL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + i++;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>
> I'm still reviewing, but I don't think you need to change any of what I said
> unless you want to.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
