On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Iago Toral <ito...@igalia.com> wrote:
>>
>> This didn't get any reviews yet. Any takers?
>>
>> On Fri, 2017-12-01 at 13:46 +0100, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
>> > Otherwise loop unrolling will fail to see the actual cost of
>> > the unrolling operations when the loop body contains 64-bit integer
>> > instructions, and very specially when the divmod64 lowering applies,
>> > since its lowering is quite expensive.
>> >
>> > Without this change, some in-development CTS tests for int64
>> > get stuck forever trying to register allocate a shader with
>> > over 50K SSA values. The large number of SSA values is the result
>> > of NIR first unrolling multiple seemingly simple loops that involve
>> > int64 instructions, only to then lower these instructions to produce
>> > a massive pile of code (due to the divmod64 lowering in the unrolled
>> > instructions).
>> >
>> > With this change, loop unrolling will see the loops with the int64
>> > code already lowered and will realize that it is too expensive to
>> > unroll.
>
>
> Hrm... I'm not quite sure what I think of this.  I put it after nir_optimize
> because I wanted opt_algebraic to be able to work it's magic and hopefully
> remove a bunch of int64 ops before we lower them.  In particular, we have
> optimizations to remove integer division and replace it with shifts.
> However, loop unrolling does need to happen before lower_indirect_derefs so
> that lower_indirect_derefs will do as little work as possible.
>
> This is a bit of a pickle...  I don't really want to add a third
> brw_nir_optimize call.  It probably wouldn't be the end of the world but it
> does add compile time.
>
> One crazy idea which I don't think I like would be to have a quick pass that
> walks the IR and sees if there are any 64-bit SSA values.  If it does, we
> run brw_nir_optimize without loop unrolling then 64-bit lowering and then we
> go into the normal brw_nir_optimize.
>
> --Jason

Why don't we just add some sort of backend-specific code-size metric
to the loop unrolling, rather than just counting NIR instructions?
i.e. something like a num_assembly_instructions(nir_instr *) function
pointer in nir_shader_compiler_options. The root of the problem is
that that different NIR instructions can turn into vastly different
numbers of assembly instructions, but we really care about the latter,
so the cutoff isn't doing its job of avoiding code-size blowup. As far
as I'm aware, this is what most other compilers (e.g. LLVM) do to
solve this problem.

>
>>
>> > ---
>> >  src/intel/compiler/brw_nir.c | 8 ++++----
>> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_nir.c
>> > b/src/intel/compiler/brw_nir.c
>> > index 8f3f77f89a..ef12cdfff8 100644
>> > --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_nir.c
>> > +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_nir.c
>> > @@ -636,6 +636,10 @@ brw_preprocess_nir(const struct brw_compiler
>> > *compiler, nir_shader *nir)
>> >
>> >     OPT(nir_split_var_copies);
>> >
>> > +   nir_lower_int64(nir, nir_lower_imul64 |
>> > +                        nir_lower_isign64 |
>> > +                        nir_lower_divmod64);
>> > +
>> >     nir = brw_nir_optimize(nir, compiler, is_scalar);
>> >
>> >     if (is_scalar) {
>> > @@ -663,10 +667,6 @@ brw_preprocess_nir(const struct brw_compiler
>> > *compiler, nir_shader *nir)
>> >        brw_nir_no_indirect_mask(compiler, nir->info.stage);
>> >     nir_lower_indirect_derefs(nir, indirect_mask);
>> >
>> > -   nir_lower_int64(nir, nir_lower_imul64 |
>> > -                        nir_lower_isign64 |
>> > -                        nir_lower_divmod64);
>> > -
>> >     /* Get rid of split copies */
>> >     nir = brw_nir_optimize(nir, compiler, is_scalar);
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-dev mailing list
>> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

Reply via email to