On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Connor Abbott <cwabbo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Before, we would only do scheduling after register allocation if we >>>>> spilled, despite the fact that the pre-RA scheduler was only supposed to >>>>> be for register pressure and set the latencies of every instruction to >>>>> 1. This meant that unless we spilled, which we rarely do, then we never >>>>> considered instruction latencies at all, and we usually never bothered >>>>> to try and hide texture fetch latency. Although a later commit removes >>>>> the setting the latency to 1 part, we still want to always run the >>>>> post-RA scheduler since it's able to take the false dependencies that >>>>> the register allocator creates into account, and it can be more >>>>> aggressive than the pre-RA scheduler since it doesn't have to worry >>>>> about register pressure at all. >>>>> >>>>> XXX perf data >>>> >>>> Test master post-ra-sched diff %diff >>>> bench_OglPSBump2 396.730 402.386 5.656 +1.400% >>>> bench_OglPSBump8 244.370 247.591 3.221 +1.300% >>>> bench_OglPSPhong 241.117 242.002 0.885 +0.300% >>>> bench_OglPSPom 59.555 59.725 0.170 +0.200% >>>> bench_OglShMapPcf 86.149 102.346 16.197 +18.800% >>>> bench_OglVSTangent 388.849 395.489 6.640 +1.700% >>>> bench_trex 65.471 65.862 0.390 +0.500% >>>> bench_trexoff 69.562 70.150 0.588 +0.800% >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, neither of the unigin benchmarks (heaven or vally) >>>> seemed to render correctly. I just got white on both master and your >>>> branch. Not sure if we have a bug or if they just weren't running >>>> right. In any case, ministat didn't notice any difference in them. >>> >>> I believe they're called "features" :) Try with >>> disable_blend_func_extended=true >> >> I pulled in a more recent drirc and am re-running those two. > > They're not in the latest drirc... probably should be added back in.
I used the drirc corresponding to the mesa commits I was testing. Given that it's actually rendering stuff, I'm going to say it's probably ok. --Jason _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
