Skip to content

Start of spatio-temportal allocation for clipping #934

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

raphlinus
Copy link
Contributor

This commit has a sketch of spatio-temporal allocation for clipping, but it is not fully wired up yet. Scenes without clipping should work, but there is a fair amount of TODO remaining for clipping.

There's a fair amount of refactoring here. The biggest change is that draw calls and render passes can be issued from inside the scheduler, as opposed to separate "prepare" and "render" calls. The number of render passes needed will vary by the scene.

This commit has a sketch of spatio-temporal allocation for clipping, but it is not fully wired up yet. Scenes without clipping should work, but there is a fair amount of TODO remaining for clipping.

There's a fair amount of refactoring here. The biggest change is that draw calls and render passes can be issued from inside the scheduler, as opposed to separate "prepare" and "render" calls. The number of render passes needed will vary by the scene.

// Polyfills `unpack4x8unorm`.
//
// Downlevel targets do not support native WGSL `unpack4x8unorm`.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should make a note that this goes away when we move to wgpu 25.

slot_ix: !0,
round: self.round,
});
let bg = tile.bg.to_u32();
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is bg going to be used outside of this alpha check and then the conditionalized draw?

size: wgpu::Extent3d {
width: 256, // TODO: make configurable
height: 1024,
depth_or_array_layers: 1,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it would be valid to use a 2d texture array here, rather than an array of textures.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure it's going to be better. You're going to have an array of two texture views in any case, where one will be bound to sample from, and the other will be a render attachment. At the Vulkan level, there are going to be image barriers between the render passes. When it's bound as a render attachment, it's going to be VK_IMAGE_LAYOUT_TRANSFER_DST_OPTIMAL, and when sampled from, VK_IMAGE_LAYOUT_SHADER_READ_ONLY_OPTIMAL (see the texture Vulkan example to see what that barrier looks like). I'm not sure having different layouts for different levels works; if not, I can imagine a smart driver using VK_IMAGE_LAYOUT_GENERAL, which might not be as efficient. I haven't investigated what wgpu actually does here. D3D12 has similar considerations.

In short, using a texture array gets you into tricky areas for the mapping to lower level APIs, while using two textures avoids that.

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.

3 participants