d9d518b248
The compute shaders have a check for the succesful completion of their
preceding stage. However, consider a shader execution path like the
following:
void main()
if (mem_error != NO_ERROR) {
return;
}
...
malloc(...);
...
barrier();
...
}
and shader execution that fails to allocate memory, thereby setting
mem_error to ERR_MALLOC_FAILED in malloc before reaching the barrier. If
another shader execution then begins execution, its mem_eror check will
make it return early and not reach the barrier.
All GPU APIs require (dynamically) uniform control flow for barriers,
and the above case may lead to GPU hangs in practice.
Fix this issue by replacing the early exits with careful checks that
don't interrupt barrier control flow.
Unfortunately, it's harder to prove the soundness of the new checks, so
this change also clears dynamic memory ranges in MEM_DEBUG mode when
memory is exhausted. The result is that accessing memory after
exhaustion triggers an error.
Signed-off-by: Elias Naur <mail@eliasnaur.com>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| doc | ||
| piet-gpu | ||
| piet-gpu-derive | ||
| piet-gpu-hal | ||
| piet-gpu-types | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| Cargo.lock | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| LICENSE-APACHE | ||
| LICENSE-MIT | ||
| README.md | ||
piet-gpu
This repo contains the new prototype for a new compute-centric 2D GPU renderer.
It succeeds the previous prototype, piet-metal.
Goals
The main goal is to answer research questions about the future of 2D rendering:
-
Is a compute-centered approach better than rasterization (Direct2D)? How much so?
-
To what extent do "advanced" GPU features (subgroups, descriptor arrays) help?
-
Can we improve quality and extend the imaging model in useful ways?
Another goal is to explore a standards-based, portable approach to GPU compute.
Blogs and other writing
Much of the research progress on piet-gpu is documented in blog entries. See doc/blogs.md for pointers to those.
There is a much larger and detailed vision that explains the longer-term goals of the project, and how we might get there.
Why not gfx-hal?
It makes a lot of sense to use gfx-hal, as it addresses the ability to write kernel and runtime code once and run it portably. But in exploring it I've found some points of friction, especially in using more "advanced" features. To serve the research goals, I'm enjoying using Vulkan directly, through ash, which I've found does a good job tracking Vulkan releases. One example is experimenting with VK_EXT_subgroup_size_control.
The hal layer in this repo is strongly inspired by gfx-hal, but with some differences. One is that we're shooting for a compile-time pipeline to generate GPU IR on DX12 and Metal, while gfx-hal ships SPIRV-Cross in the runtime. To access Shader Model 6, that would also require bundling DXC at runtime, which is not yet implemented (though it's certainly possible).
Why not wgpu?
The case for wgpu is also strong, but it's even less mature. I'd love to see it become a solid foundation, at which point I'd use it as the main integration with Druid.
In short, the goal is to facilitate the research now, collect the data, and then use that to choose a best path for shipping later.
License and contributions.
The piet-gpu project is dual-licensed under both Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses.
In addition, the shaders are provided under the terms of the Unlicense. The intent is for this research to be used in as broad a context as possible.
Contributions are welcome by pull request. The Rust code of conduct applies.