On Wed, 09 May 2012 00:43:47 -0700, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 05:59 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > This will be convenient when I want to comment out optimization code
> > to see the raw program being optimized, but more importantly will let
> > the interference check be used during optimization.
> > ---
> > .../drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_live_variables.cpp | 24
> > ++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_live_variables.cpp
> > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_live_variables.cpp
> > index c7ee582..46408da 100644
> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_live_variables.cpp
> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_fs_live_variables.cpp
> > @@ -226,19 +226,19 @@ fs_visitor::calculate_live_intervals()
> > bool
> > fs_visitor::virtual_grf_interferes(int a, int b)
> > {
> > - int start = MAX2(this->virtual_grf_def[a], this->virtual_grf_def[b]);
> > - int end = MIN2(this->virtual_grf_use[a], this->virtual_grf_use[b]);
> > -
> > - /* We can't handle dead register writes here, without iterating
> > - * over the whole instruction stream to find every single dead
> > - * write to that register to compare to the live interval of the
> > - * other register. Just assert that dead_code_eliminate() has been
> > - * called.
> > + int a_def = this->virtual_grf_def[a], a_use = this->virtual_grf_use[a];
> > + int b_def = this->virtual_grf_def[b], b_use = this->virtual_grf_use[b];
> > +
> > + /* If there's dead code (def but not use), it would break our test
> > + * unless we consider it used.
> > */
>
> Sorry...I'm not quite sure what test you mean here. The start < end
> test at the end? Yes, the dead code case would yield (1 << 30) < -1 and
> fail that test, so we'd return false...aka "it doesn't
> interfere"...which is the opposite of what you've special-cased here.
>
> So if it does need to be marked as interfering, your code is correct.
>
> What are the ramifications of saying that it does or doesn't interfere?
> (If you'd prefer to just point me at a paper, that's OK too...it's
> been a while since I've really looked at register allocation so I'm
> probably being dense.)
>
> Regardless, I'm glad to see that it's now possible to comment out the
> dead code pass.
Yeah, the assertion was to make sure we didn't hit the return false
case, and I decided the "right" thing to do was return true.
The requirement is that when you have a sequence of instructions (top to
bottom, just in columns for visual effect):
write a
write b
read a
(b is never read)
that b, though dead, is considered to be interfering with a. Otherwise
you'll allocate it into the same spot as a and trash it. Now, this
fails to distinguish from, say, the case:
write b
write a
read a
(b is never read)
where they don't actually interfere, but we do it this way because the
interval information we have wouldn't be different between that case
and:
write b
write a
write b
read a
(b is never read)
But now that I think about it, we probably have a bug with:
write b
read b
write a
write b
read a
where they aren't considered as interfering. That case would have been
dealt with by the dead code pass (by removing the second write to b).
pgpQuVMNjeFzf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
