-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Initial precompiled shaders implementation #7834
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
base: trunk
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Initial precompiled shaders implementation #7834
Conversation
Hmm, I think in general I like the ideas put forward in your plan you wrote up, that makes sense to me. As for the code changes themselves, I don't think that we need another variant internally - this feels redundant when all the other variants exist. Maybe what would need to be added is an optional reflection info to each of the variants? |
@cwfitzgerald The purpose of this variant is so that the user can pass a single shader without considering backend-specific code. This way we can also later on add a macro that creates this struct, filling fields for all the backends that are supported, and it doesn't need to be passed a |
Yeah, I agree that it makes sense in |
True, didn't think about that to be honest. I'll rewrite that part of this PR |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added some comments on the code, I want to do some docs adjustments before this lands, but github won't let me do it inline, so I'll push a commit when I have a minute
if let Some(spirv) = &self.spirv { | ||
bytemuck::cast_slice(spirv) | ||
} else if let Some(msl) = &self.msl { | ||
msl.as_bytes() | ||
} else if let Some(dxil) = &self.dxil { | ||
dxil | ||
} else { | ||
panic!("No binary data provided to `ShaderModuleDescriptorGeneric`") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we can have a single data file anymore, we need to have a single file for each type. Additionally we need to output the hlsl etc. With tracing we need to be able to replicate all the descriptors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@cwfitzgerald I wonder if for tracing we should only use the source that is actually used. And yeah good catch, this was just cobbled together so it would still build and have "some" level of tracing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the intent was that traces should be able to work cross api, but I don't know if that is currently true. The trace infrastructure is broken and pretty neglected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've attempted to address this. Let me know if you think my approach is workable. I haven't done any testing or thought too hard about it, but as you mentioned tracing is in a very sorry state right now.
All your comments should be addressed :) |
@cwfitzgerald When you're back - this has been waiting for a while. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm really looking forward to this! Just some things which popped up!
@@ -1233,15 +1210,18 @@ bitflags_array! { | |||
/// [BlasTriangleGeometrySizeDescriptor::vertex_format]: super::BlasTriangleGeometrySizeDescriptor | |||
const EXTENDED_ACCELERATION_STRUCTURE_VERTEX_FORMATS = 1 << 50; | |||
|
|||
/// Enables creating shader modules from DirectX HLSL or DXIL shaders (unsafe) | |||
/// Enables creating shaders from passthrough with reflection info (unsafe) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we link to the relevant API (even though it will need to be hardcoded to docs.rs). E.g. how we linked to include_spirv_raw
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a good reason why we should do that instead of e.g. just giving the function name? Linking directly to docs.rs seems like it would come with some potential issues, like linking to more recent or non-existent docs as the API changes (or before it is part of a release)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not super important. Again, I was mostly seeing that it was incongruent with the old API, which did link to include_spirv_raw
- though for some reason, calling it make_spirv_raw
. See also Self::PUSH_CONSTANTS
, as an example.
That is, these concerns have already been litigated, I believe.
wgpu-types/src/lib.rs
Outdated
/// Optional reflection information | ||
pub reflection: Option<ShaderModuleReflection>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should better document when it is valid to leave this out/what is it used for/how do you get it?
Also missing full stop at end of doc comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reflection information is always optional. I left this as a field so we could work from it later on. Right now the struct is actually empty. There isn't a way to actually construct it yet. I can remove it if you think thats best for now, just wanted to get out a rough sketch of the API.
@DJMcNab Thanks for the review! Upon further inspection it seems my PR was not super well thought through or checked, so I'll have another look over everything myself in addition to addressing your comments. |
@DJMcNab I've just given this PR a final look and it looks good. Some of your comments I left open as I wasn't sure how to handle them. Let me know what you think, you get the final say of course! Also pinging @cwfitzgerald because this hopefully can be merged soon Another note: the only backend not currently supported is OpenGL. Once we get that done, maybe we should consider removing this as a feature? I'm not sure how that would interact with e.g. custom backends so I'll wait until later to inquire about that. |
I'm not planning to review this again - it needs to be reviewed by someone with write access, and I was providing a "first pass" review to help speed this along, but I can't give a fully "in-context" review. Thanks for actioning the review feedback so well! I've found it easy to submit PRs which don't hold up when given a second reading myself as well - that's what review is for, after all! |
Connections
Works towards #3103
Depends on #7831
Also, as this is the start of a big change, I'd like to ping @cwfitzgerald to at least make sure I haven't gone off in the wrong direction.
Description
This adds a
CreateShaderModuleDescriptorPassthrough::Generic
enum variant which contains code for multiple types of shader source,allows creating passthrough shaders without writing backend specific code (if on metal pass MSL, etc). This variant also includes an optional reflection thing. For now, I don't know exactly what reflection info is needed, but if possible, we should make sure this can live inwgpu-types
orwgpu-core
to avoid dependency onnaga
. It seems the best model for this is thewgpu_core::validation::Interface
, we might just have to replace some of the naga types.Using this requires enabling the EXPERIMENTAL_PRECOMPILED_SHADERS feature. This feature is only supported on DX12, Vulkan, and Metal. Logic on these backends is otherwise identical to the respective specific passthrough methods.
Nothing is currently done with the reflection info.
An overview of my approach can be found in this comment. If this process takes longer than expected we can make a tracking issue. For now I will be posting updates by editing that comment and referencing it in PRs.
Testing
No testing yet. However, the code seems somewhat small and robust.
Squash pls
Checklist
cargo fmt
.taplo format
.cargo clippy --tests
. If applicable, add:--target wasm32-unknown-unknown
cargo xtask test
to run tests.CHANGELOG.md
entry.