Hi,
On 06.07.2018 00:28, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net
<mailto:ja...@jlekstrand.net>> wrote:
[...]
>> Optimizing for the latter case is an essentially
>> heuristic assumption that needs to be verified experimentally. Have
you
>> tested the effect of this pass on non-DX workloads extensively?
>>
>
> Yes, it is a trade-off. No, I have not done particularly extensive
> testing. We do, however, know of non-DXVK workloads that would
benefit
> from this. I believe Manhattan is one such example though I have not
yet
> benchmarked it.
>
You should grab some numbers then to make sure there are no
regressions...
I'm working on that. Unfortunately the perf system is giving me
trouble so I don't have the numbers yet.
But keep in mind that the i965 scheduler is already
performing a similar optimization (locally, but with cycle-count
information). This will only help over the existing
optimization if the
shaders that represent a bottleneck in Manhattan have sufficient
control
flow for the basic block boundaries to represent a problem to the
(local) scheduler.
I'm not sure about the manhattan shader but the Skyrim shader does
have control flow which the discard has to get moved above.
I have results from the perf system now and somehow this pass makes
manhattan noticeably worse. I'll look into that.
Note: All the more complex GfxBench tests use discard:
Egypt, T-Rex, Manhattan, CarChase, AztecRuins...
(Most of the other benchmarks we're running, don't use them.)
- Eero
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
