On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> So, I don't know much about how nv50 ir works, but to me this just
>> seems like a pretty slow implementation of a very limited instruction
>> scheduler. In addition to the runtime compl
2016-08-13 21:33 GMT+02:00 Ilia Mirkin :
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
>> So, I don't know much about how nv50 ir works, but to me this just
>> seems like a pretty slow implementation of a very limited instruction
>> scheduler. In addition to the runtime complexity proble
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> So, I don't know much about how nv50 ir works, but to me this just
> seems like a pretty slow implementation of a very limited instruction
> scheduler. In addition to the runtime complexity problems you
> mentioned, you're going to get a lot
So, I don't know much about how nv50 ir works, but to me this just
seems like a pretty slow implementation of a very limited instruction
scheduler. In addition to the runtime complexity problems you
mentioned, you're going to get a lot more benefit even from a very
simple list scheduler compared to
this paths reorders instructions in a way, so that the hardware is able to
dual issue more instructions leading to higher performance.
with all previos commits put together
changes for ./GpuTest /test=pixmark_piano /benchmark /no_scorebox /msaa=0
/benchmark_duration_ms=6 /width=1024 /height=64
