Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support multiple unbounded arrays within a single SRG #25

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jeremyong-az
Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyong-az jeremyong-az commented Mar 20, 2022

DX12 binding semantics assign a register to each binding in an array and
do not permit overlap. Spaces act as a "namespace" to permit multiple
unbounded arrays to be present in a shader. Instead of restricting
unbounded array use within an SRG, this change modifies the space
assignment strategy. Unbounded arrays (on platforms that require it,
DX12 in this case) are designated a unique space, starting from 1000 and
counting up. This "spill space" is orthogonal to the space assignment
corresponding with the SRG frequency.

DX12 binding semantics assign a register to each binding in an array and
do not permit overlap. Spaces act as a "namespace" to permit multiple
unbounded arrays to be present in a shader. Instead of restricting
unbounded array use within an SRG, this change modifies the space
assignment strategy. Unbounded arrays (on platforms that require it,
DX12 in this case) are designated a unique space, starting from 1000 and
counting up. This "spill space" is orthogonal to the space assignment
corresponding with the SRG frequency.

Signed-off-by: Jeremy Ong <[email protected]>
@jeremyong-az jeremyong-az changed the title Add "bindless" SRG member reflected attribute Support multiple unbounded arrays within a single SRG Mar 27, 2022
@jeremyong-az
Copy link
Contributor Author

A change is needed to correct tests that expect an error with multiple unbounded arrays present.

@moudgils moudgils requested a review from a team May 4, 2022 21:00
Copy link

@Adi-Amazon Adi-Amazon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great enhancement.
Could we add in the documentation of the header several lines about this special case and explain the choice of using indirection into the the upper spaces (DX12) instead of within the Srg space?

Copy link
Contributor

@galibzon galibzon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What test cases were added to validate these changes?
https://github.com/o3de/o3de-azslc/wiki/Adding-New-Test-Cases-To-AZSLc

@jeremyong-az
Copy link
Contributor Author

@galibzon None as of yet, although a file was added to act as the test once written. The thing that needs to be done first before this PR can be merged is fixing tests that were broken because limits that existed previously are now lifted.

@galibzon
Copy link
Contributor

galibzon commented May 4, 2022

@jeremyong-az , also it's important to highlight that azslc follows the exact same workflow as o3de. o3de/o3de-azslc is upstream, aws-lumberyard-dev/o3de-azslc is origin. So the PR should come from aws-lumberyard-dev/o3de-azslc.

@jeremyong-az
Copy link
Contributor Author

jeremyong-az commented May 4, 2022

@galibzon I did not have permissions to aws-lumberyard-dev/o3de-azslc when this PR was created.

@moudgils
Copy link

moudgils commented May 4, 2022

Let me move this pr to the correct repo, address the failing tests and maybe add a new one to test the new changes.

@@ -98,6 +101,10 @@ namespace AZ::ShaderCompiler
int GetAccumulated(BindingType r) const;

int m_space = 0; //<! logical space

// See: MultiBindingLocationMarker::m_unboundedSpillSpace
int m_unboundedSpillSpace;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's initialize this just to be safe.

Comment on lines +119 to +121
MultiBindingLocationMaker(const Options& options, int& unboundedSpillSpace)
: m_options{ options }
, m_unboundedSpillSpace{ unboundedSpillSpace }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would prefer unboundedSpillSpace be a pointer instead of a reference, to make it obvious what's going on at the call site. Calling "MultiBindingLocationMaker(options, &unboundedSpillSpaceValue)" is a more clear than calling "MultiBindingLocationMaker(options, unboundedSpillSpaceValue)"

Comment on lines +608 to +609
// We start at an arbitrarily high number to avoid conflicts with spaces occupied by any user declarations
m_unboundedSpillSpace = 1000;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see that m_unboundedSpillSpace is a mutable member, so it can be assigned here in a const function. Why can't this just be a local variable instead? Is it used after the BuildSignatureDescription function closes? If so, please add a code comment about what's going on, as this is unexpected.

Comment on lines +16 to +23
Texture2D<float4> m_texSRVa[]; // t0+, space1000
Texture2D<float4> m_texSRVb[]; // t0+, space1001
RWTexture2D<float4> m_texUAVa[]; // u0+, space1002
RWTexture2D<float4> m_texUAVb[]; // u0+, space1003
Sampler m_samplera[]; // s0+, space1004
Sampler m_samplerb[]; // s0+, space1005
ConstantBuffer<MyStruct> m_structArraya[]; // b0+, space1006
ConstantBuffer<MyStruct> m_structArrayb[]; // b0+, space1007
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be an Emission test instead, so we can check the appropriate spaces are used in the generated output?

Copy link

@Adi-Amazon Adi-Amazon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Very good enhancement. Is there a fast course of action to move this to the global public repo?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants