On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote: > 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.
Ah neat. I guess something to fixed then. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
