On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:07:32AM -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Ben Widawsky >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > +static struct query queries[] = { >> > + { >> > + .query = GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER_INVOCATIONS_ARB, >> > + .name = "GL_FRAGMENT_SHADER_INVOCATIONS_ARB", >> > + .min = TEST_WIDTH * TEST_HEIGHT / 2, >> > + .max = 0xffffffff}, >> > + /* XXX: >> > + * Intel hardware has some very unpredictable results for fragment >> > + * shader invocations. After a day of head scratching, I've given >> > up. >> > + * Generating a real min, or max is not possible. The spec allows >> > this. >> > + * This will also help variance across vendors. >> > + */ >> >> Is there a working theory as to how this could be less than width * >> height? Does it count 1 per quad? (Or how it could be much more than >> width * height... I can see edges getting processed unnecessarily, >> but... max_int seems high.) > > No working theory on min, but I figured if we're going to fudge the max, we > may > as well fudge the min. What would you like as a max? I can show you hardware > which generates way more invocations than anything I can contrive. 1440 > invocations for an 8x8.
Impressive :) Best I can do is suggest that I don't think you're counting what you think you're counting. This has probably occurred to you, but you really should triple-check that you're reading (and writing) from the right place for this counter. -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
