[PATCH 5/5] d3dcompiler: Allocate temporary registers for variables.

Matteo Bruni matteo.mystral at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 14:35:08 CDT 2020


On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:20 PM Zebediah Figura <zfigura at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/1/20 1:37 PM, Matteo Bruni wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:54 AM Zebediah Figura <z.figura12 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Zeb,
> >
> > I have a number of questions / comments, inline.
> >
> >> diff --git a/dlls/d3dcompiler_43/hlsl.y b/dlls/d3dcompiler_43/hlsl.y
> >> index d6c64edcace..f828e05e335 100644
> >> --- a/dlls/d3dcompiler_43/hlsl.y
> >> +++ b/dlls/d3dcompiler_43/hlsl.y
> >> @@ -2732,6 +2732,177 @@ static void compute_liveness(struct hlsl_ir_function_decl *entry_func)
> >>       compute_liveness_recurse(entry_func->body, 0, 0);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +struct liveness_ctx
> >> +{
> >> +    size_t count;
> >> +    struct
> >> +    {
> >> +        /* 0 if not live yet. */
> >> +        unsigned int last_read;
> >> +    } *regs;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static unsigned char get_dead_writemask(struct liveness_ctx *liveness,
> >> +        unsigned int first_write, unsigned int index, unsigned int components)
> >
> > Maybe get_available_writemask()? Same for the other similarly named functions.
>
> Sure.
>
> >
> >> +{
> >> +    unsigned char i, writemask = 0, count = 0;
> >> +
> >> +    for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if (liveness->regs[index + i].last_read <= first_write)
> >> +        {
> >> +            writemask |= 1 << i;
> >> +            if (++count == components)
> >> +                return writemask;
> >> +        }
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static struct hlsl_reg allocate_temp_register(struct liveness_ctx *liveness,
> >> +        unsigned int first_write, unsigned int last_read, unsigned char components)
> >
> > How is this going to be different to the non-temp register allocation?
>
> The main difference is with uniforms (and anonymous constants, in sm1),
> since they're essentially live from program entry.
>
> That said, after rereading my uniform allocation path, I'm not sure why
> I did write it any differently. The only real reason would seem to be to
> avoid looping through the entire register array every time, but I didn't
> even bother making that optimization...
>
> >
> >> +{
> >> +    struct hlsl_reg ret = {.allocated = TRUE};
> >> +    unsigned char writemask, i;
> >> +    unsigned int regnum;
> >> +
> >> +    for (regnum = 0; regnum < liveness->count; regnum += 4)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if ((writemask = get_dead_writemask(liveness, first_write, regnum, components)))
> >> +            break;
> >> +    }
> >> +    if (regnum == liveness->count)
> >> +    {
> >> +        liveness->count = max(liveness->count * 2, 32);
> >> +        liveness->regs = d3dcompiler_realloc(liveness->regs, liveness->count * sizeof(*liveness->regs));
> >
> > Do we want to use array_reserve() here?
>
> Yes, definitely. I wrote this code before adding that, and forgot about
> it...
>
> >
> >> +        writemask = (1 << components) - 1;
> >> +    }
> >> +    for (i = 0; i < 4; ++i)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if (writemask & (1 << i))
> >> +            liveness->regs[regnum + i].last_read = last_read;
> >> +    }
> >> +    ret.reg = regnum / 4;
> >> +    ret.writemask = writemask;
> >> +    return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static BOOL is_range_dead(struct liveness_ctx *liveness, unsigned int first_write,
> >> +        unsigned int index, unsigned int elements)
> >> +{
> >> +    unsigned int i;
> >> +
> >> +    for (i = 0; i < elements; i += 4)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if (!get_dead_writemask(liveness, first_write, index + i, 4))
> >> +            return FALSE;
> >> +    }
> >> +    return TRUE;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* "elements" is the total number of consecutive whole registers needed. */
> >> +static struct hlsl_reg allocate_temp_range(struct liveness_ctx *liveness,
> >> +        unsigned int first_write, unsigned int last_read, unsigned int elements)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct hlsl_reg ret = {.allocated = TRUE};
> >> +    unsigned int i, regnum;
> >> +
> >> +    elements *= 4;
> >> +
> >> +    for (regnum = 0; regnum < liveness->count; regnum += 4)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if (is_range_dead(liveness, first_write, regnum, min(elements, liveness->count - regnum)))
> >> +            break;
> >> +    }
> >> +    if (regnum + elements >= liveness->count)
> >> +    {
> >> +        liveness->count = max(liveness->count * 2, regnum + elements);
> >> +        liveness->regs = d3dcompiler_realloc(liveness->regs, liveness->count * sizeof(*liveness->regs));
> >> +    }
> >> +    for (i = 0; i < elements; ++i)
> >> +        liveness->regs[regnum + i].last_read = last_read;
> >> +    ret.reg = regnum / 4;
> >> +    return ret;
> >
> > It feels like the for should execute elements * 4 iterations, instead.
>
> It does; "elements *= 4" above. Maybe explicitly multiplying by 4 every
> time would be clearer?

Eh, I'm blind. Not sure, maybe have a "components = elements * 4;" and
use that throughout. I HOPE that's a bit more foolproof...

> >
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void allocate_variable_temp_register(struct hlsl_ir_var *var, struct liveness_ctx *liveness)
> >> +{
> >> +    if (!var->reg.allocated && var->last_read)
> >> +    {
> >> +        if (var->data_type->reg_size > 1)
> >> +        {
> >> +            var->reg = allocate_temp_range(liveness, var->first_write,
> >> +                    var->last_read, var->data_type->reg_size);
> >> +            TRACE("Allocated r%u-r%u to %s (liveness %u-%u).\n", var->reg.reg,
> >> +                    var->reg.reg + var->data_type->reg_size - 1, var->name, var->first_write, var->last_read);
> >> +        }
> >> +        else
> >> +        {
> >> +            var->reg = allocate_temp_register(liveness, var->first_write,
> >> +                    var->last_read, var->data_type->dimx);
> >> +            TRACE("Allocated r%u%s to %s (liveness %u-%u).\n", var->reg.reg,
> >> +                    debug_writemask(var->reg.writemask), var->name, var->first_write, var->last_read);
> >> +        }
> >> +    }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void allocate_temp_registers_recurse(struct list *instrs, struct liveness_ctx *liveness)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct hlsl_ir_node *instr;
> >> +
> >> +    LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(instr, instrs, struct hlsl_ir_node, entry)
> >> +    {
> >> +        switch (instr->type)
> >> +        {
> >> +        case HLSL_IR_ASSIGNMENT:
> >> +        {
> >> +            struct hlsl_ir_assignment *assignment = assignment_from_node(instr);
> >> +            allocate_variable_temp_register(hlsl_var_from_deref(&assignment->lhs), liveness);
> >> +            break;
> >> +        }
> >> +        case HLSL_IR_IF:
> >> +        {
> >> +            struct hlsl_ir_if *iff = if_from_node(instr);
> >> +            allocate_temp_registers_recurse(iff->then_instrs, liveness);
> >> +            if (iff->else_instrs)
> >> +                allocate_temp_registers_recurse(iff->else_instrs, liveness);
> >> +            break;
> >> +        }
> >> +        case HLSL_IR_LOOP:
> >> +        {
> >> +            struct hlsl_ir_loop *loop = loop_from_node(instr);
> >> +            allocate_temp_registers_recurse(loop->body, liveness);
> >> +            break;
> >> +        }
> >> +        default:
> >> +            break;
> >> +        }
> >> +    }
> >> +}
> >
> > Do we need to allocate temporary registers for other instructions too,
> > like expressions?
>
> Yes, that's in a separate patch. I was torn between "submit everything
> related to RA at once so there's enough context" and "keep patch set
> sizes reviewable" :-/

It's fine: I asked, you replied, I should have all the pieces now. If
not, I'll ask again :)

> >
> >> +
> >> +/* Simple greedy temporary register allocation pass that just assigns a unique
> >> + * index to all (simultaneously live) variables or intermediate values. Agnostic
> >> + * as to how many registers are actually available for the current backend, and
> >> + * does not handle constants. */
> >> +static void allocate_temp_registers(struct hlsl_ir_function_decl *entry_func)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct liveness_ctx liveness = {};
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that this is a gcc extension: you want '{0}' instead.
> >
>
> Huh, indeed it is. I'll avoid that in the future.



More information about the wine-devel mailing list