[PATCH vkd3d v6 5/6] vkd3d-shader/hlsl: Handle conditionals in copy propagation.
Zebediah Figura (she/her)
zfigura at codeweavers.com
Tue Nov 16 22:41:22 CST 2021
On 11/16/21 13:00, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Mascellani <gmascellani at codeweavers.com>
> ---
> libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl_codegen.c | 157 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 149 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
I'd been putting off these two patches because I thought they would be
harder and I wanted to get the basic parts in first, but I had a look at
them anyway and they are actually pretty simple. So, nice job :-)
I do have some comments, however...
> diff --git a/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl_codegen.c b/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl_codegen.c
> index 42422220..775fec19 100644
> --- a/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl_codegen.c
> +++ b/libs/vkd3d-shader/hlsl_codegen.c
> @@ -255,7 +255,18 @@ static void replace_node(struct hlsl_ir_node *old, struct hlsl_ir_node *new)
> * updated. When scanning through a load, it is checked if all the
> * registers involved in the load come from a single node. In such
> * case, the store can be replaced with a swizzle based on that
> - * node. */
> + * node.
> + *
> + * All of the above works when we disregard control flow. With control
> + * flow it becames slightly more complicated: instead of a single map
> + * we keep a stack of them, pushing a new entry each time we enter an
> + * embedded block, and popping the entry when leaving the block.
Typo, 'becames'.
Also, this is nitpicky, but the first sentence is a little weird when
the earlier comment contains the phrase 'because control flow forces us
to drop information'.
> + *
> + * When entering a conditional block, both branches ("then" and
> + * "else") can inherit the variable state available just before the
> + * conditional block. After the conditional block, all variables that
> + * might have been written in either branch must be invalidated,
> + * because we don't know which branch has executed. */
>
> struct copy_propagation_value
> {
> @@ -272,7 +283,9 @@ struct copy_propagation_variable
>
> struct copy_propagation_state
> {
> - struct rb_tree variables;
> + struct rb_tree *variables;
> + unsigned int depth;
> + unsigned int capacity;
> };
As an alternative, you could create a new copy_propagation_state struct
on stack in copy_propagation_process_if().
>
> static int copy_propagation_variable_compare(const void *key, const struct rb_entry *entry)
> @@ -293,7 +306,7 @@ static void copy_propagation_variable_destroy(struct rb_entry *entry, void *cont
> static struct copy_propagation_variable *copy_propagation_get_variable(struct copy_propagation_state *state,
> struct hlsl_ir_var *var)
> {
> - struct rb_entry *entry = rb_get(&state->variables, var);
> + struct rb_entry *entry = rb_get(&state->variables[state->depth], var);
>
> if (entry)
> return RB_ENTRY_VALUE(entry, struct copy_propagation_variable, entry);
> @@ -304,7 +317,7 @@ static struct copy_propagation_variable *copy_propagation_get_variable(struct co
> static struct copy_propagation_variable *copy_propagation_create_variable(struct hlsl_ctx *ctx,
> struct copy_propagation_state *state, struct hlsl_ir_var *var)
> {
> - struct rb_entry *entry = rb_get(&state->variables, var);
> + struct rb_entry *entry = rb_get(&state->variables[state->depth], var);
> struct copy_propagation_variable *variable;
> int res;
>
> @@ -323,7 +336,7 @@ static struct copy_propagation_variable *copy_propagation_create_variable(struct
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - res = rb_put(&state->variables, var, &variable->entry);
> + res = rb_put(&state->variables[state->depth], var, &variable->entry);
> assert(!res);
>
> return variable;
> @@ -354,6 +367,99 @@ static void copy_propagation_set_value(struct copy_propagation_variable *variabl
> }
> }
>
> +static void copy_propagation_invalidate_from_block(struct hlsl_ctx *ctx, struct copy_propagation_state *state,
> + struct hlsl_block *block)
> +{
> + struct hlsl_ir_node *instr;
> +
> + LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(instr, &block->instrs, struct hlsl_ir_node, entry)
> + {
> + switch (instr->type)
> + {
> + case HLSL_IR_STORE:
> + {
> + struct hlsl_ir_store *store = hlsl_ir_store(instr);
> + struct copy_propagation_variable *variable;
> + struct hlsl_deref *lhs = &store->lhs;
> + struct hlsl_ir_var *var = lhs->var;
> + unsigned int offset;
> +
> + variable = copy_propagation_get_variable(state, var);
> + if (!variable)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (hlsl_offset_from_deref(lhs, &offset))
> + copy_propagation_set_value(variable, offset, store->writemask, NULL);
> + else
> + copy_propagation_invalidate_whole_variable(variable);
> +
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + case HLSL_IR_IF:
> + {
> + struct hlsl_ir_if *iff = hlsl_ir_if(instr);
> +
> + copy_propagation_invalidate_from_block(ctx, state, &iff->then_instrs);
> + copy_propagation_invalidate_from_block(ctx, state, &iff->else_instrs);
> +
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + case HLSL_IR_LOOP:
> + {
> + struct hlsl_ir_loop *loop = hlsl_ir_loop(instr);
> +
> + copy_propagation_invalidate_from_block(ctx, state, &loop->body);
> +
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void copy_propagation_pop(struct copy_propagation_state *state)
> +{
> + assert(state->depth > 0);
> + rb_destroy(&state->variables[state->depth], copy_propagation_variable_destroy, NULL);
> + --state->depth;
> +}
> +
> +static bool copy_propagation_duplicate(struct hlsl_ctx *ctx, struct copy_propagation_state *state)
> +{
> + struct copy_propagation_variable *var;
> +
> + if (state->depth + 1 == state->capacity)
> + {
> + unsigned int new_capacity = 2 * state->capacity;
> + struct rb_tree *new_vars;
> +
> + new_vars = hlsl_realloc(ctx, state->variables, sizeof(*state->variables) * new_capacity);
> + if (!new_vars)
> + return false;
> + state->capacity = new_capacity;
> + state->variables = new_vars;
> + }
This looks like an open-coded hlsl_array_reserve(); any reason not to
use that?
> + ++state->depth;
> +
> + rb_init(&state->variables[state->depth], copy_propagation_variable_compare);
> +
> + RB_FOR_EACH_ENTRY(var, &state->variables[state->depth - 1], struct copy_propagation_variable, entry)
> + {
> + struct copy_propagation_variable *new_var = copy_propagation_create_variable(ctx, state, var->var);
> +
> + if (!new_var)
> + return false;
> +
> + memcpy(new_var->values, var->values, sizeof(*var->values) * var->var->data_type->reg_size);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
One potential alternative that occurred to me: instead of duplicating
the whole state, we can search backwards in each parent scope in
copy_propagation_get_variable(). Notably, in the case of a loop, we'd
hit NULL before a "real" variable, and return NULL.
Assuming that works it'd reduce the amount of allocation we have to do.
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list