On January 15, 2019 17:55:31 Matt Turner <matts...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:58 AM Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
Previously, we only applied the fix to shaders with a dispatch mode of
SIMD8 but the code it relies on for SIMD16 mode only applies to SIMD16
instructions. If you have a SIMD8 instruction in a SIMD16 shader,
neither would trigger and the restriction could still be hit.
Cc: Jose Maria Casanova Crespo <jmcasan...@igalia.com>
Fixes: 232ed8980217dd "i965/fs: Register allocator shoudn't use grf127..."
---
src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp | 13 ++++++-------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp
b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp
index 5db5242452e..ec743f9b5bf 100644
--- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp.
+++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs_reg_allocate.cpp
@@ -667,15 +667,14 @@ fs_visitor::assign_regs(bool allow_spilling, bool
spill_all)
* messages adding a node interference to the grf127_send_hack_node.
* This node has a fixed asignment to grf127.
*
- * We don't apply it to SIMD16 because previous code avoids any register
- * overlap between sources and destination.
+ * We don't apply it to SIMD16 instructions because previous code avoids
+ * any register overlap between sources and destination.
*/
ra_set_node_reg(g, grf127_send_hack_node, 127);
- if (dispatch_width == 8) {
- foreach_block_and_inst(block, fs_inst, inst, cfg) {
- if (inst->is_send_from_grf() && inst->dst.file == VGRF)
- ra_add_node_interference(g, inst->dst.nr,
grf127_send_hack_node);
- }
+ foreach_block_and_inst(block, fs_inst, inst, cfg) {
+ if (inst->exec_size < 16 && inst->is_send_from_grf() &&
+ inst->dst.file == VGRF)
+ ra_add_node_interference(g, inst->dst.nr, grf127_send_hack_node);
}
Did the code in brw_eu_validate.c catch the case you found?
Yes, it did. It was a fairly simple case; it just occurred as a SIMD8
instruction in a SIMD16 program.
In fact, that code looks wrong:
| (brw_inst_dst_da_reg_nr(devinfo, inst) +
| brw_inst_rlen(devinfo, inst) > 127) &&
I think > should be >=. And maybe we should have a separate case
earlier that checks that dst_nr+rlen actually fits in registers, and
then change > to just ==. FFS :(
Not sure what I was thinking letting that patch through without a unit
test. I'll do that.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
