WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
NEW
246388
Max Uniform Block Size (UBO) is too small
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246388
Summary
Max Uniform Block Size (UBO) is too small
munrocket
Reported
2022-10-11 20:58:23 PDT
I am tried to implement compute shader with UBO and faced with a problem that WebGL2 Max Uniform Block Size in Safari is much smaller than in Firefox/Chrome. 16384 instead of 65536.
Attachments
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 1
2022-10-18 20:59:18 PDT
<
rdar://problem/101322218
>
Kenneth Russell
Comment 2
2022-10-19 11:54:44 PDT
Do you have a test case for your problem? Gregg (gman@, cc'd) raised several of these limits in ANGLE's Metal backend, but I'm not sure they made it into Safari yet. Have you tried Safari Technology Preview? If you try Chrome Canary, go to about:flags, set "Choose ANGLE graphics backend" to "Metal" and restart, is the UBO size larger?
munrocket
Comment 3
2022-10-19 12:25:38 PDT
Interesting. The same issue exist in Chrome Canary (with Metal backend) and Safari Technology Preview. Test case is visible on
https://webglreport.com
where Max Uniform Block Size is smaller in 4 times.
munrocket
Comment 4
2022-10-21 15:22:57 PDT
In WebKit UBO size in fact almost unlimited. Looks like this bug easy to fix. Test case:
https://jsgist.org/?src=cb64%2CeJyNVo9P4zYU_lfeskmkLCQpB6etB2jAwe0k0CF-aJso4kzitGaO3dlO2o71f9-znYQU7k4nQHWfnz9_3_tlngJBShqMgvMlPOoPTJsgCjQ1homJDkZPqygoGKe4vO1cmcjpIp6akqNvJoWhwqB5z1oOxgJgb0pJ7la4LqkhkE2JQtT9cVCZYuuXcQBJu2-Y4fTg5ugTnCxIOeN0L_Emh5R0UHsPMl-2hzIiaqIP9pJm0Zh1ptjMgFYZ3jQ1ZqZHSZLlIn7UOeWsVrGgJhGzMjHzCUfrb7vxME6THHUnu_HCmbeKitu9cYD4HrHh0jBAUlZpsIpehCTTei0i1h-e7NmSqAkTI0jf2W-ypqrgcj6CKctzKtC4GgsvxfvPWW6mIximaT13R6aUTabGW6bOgpxnnCxH8MBl9reFeE3ocZ0PpwbO_7o_P_zz3sZ7H3bSX9--gyTB5TlZwI1ghVQlHFlEuGL_Ukhg-HYs7A_CaAO1Rt_PP6IAzaSAN2kKVFs6SEVWJsSTxNidfUgHwATUNNsGciE1s2ak6QJQIZLdwKwY4uTUkuUYJiZCuxr4MKBK64BgfQRrn_D71oK7iLUTdi4RpHEaASZ24Lwxtp_dxV5C8TUJM0Uz5mxTDPYMMEXEOIRWR0vX2qomWG6juqRa8qoj2G46CKiuWUlfHLvCjqB5K9MKgOqUUZ7f_vT0nKPVnVewHrcdKJgg_Fhyqb4VPE-tRrnhdryJITtVZHIspcrjxRK2-qwHmOkSz_dM8SLqe8RLH03oXd6GPt6FnyHe3dQWocY1XudED2wa7N9g8wvqtoatvjZDtkJ9H0SY4ghTIieKlB9FISN4qIqCKrt2vkUlMpd_JpgJnWiLhdU8QZQ_6MOHs21wxb8wdqPpr33IZVaV2BHxPxVVyyvKaWakCseB9xgHXuiEo683xYh47JHQbU4fJny7dWMFhD9MeBd0wqky4YZzGoKQoKvZTCpD841BoxVAUY3dFVqEhjNOx2oGH86uzlrRTU12AUA2bmplihJDL543Qhup2xpDVui7lntc6dYn7IHEzfrVzcQYxR4q41vBd4q32ZA9PTfgCL_kxJAR3G4NI7B_b_yHW95FIKryWJYzKTDGegTbsHIFDL0Erms56uynSpaHSpGldqIaAl6TO4Bkvbc-FPlhx9l5f6VYXkltWtAJbUGb0af7sYralPa6AFU3JeFGdNQWiJ_Pd1FzwNY-TnuX71f3Y-X3guzG9-uYNITcKO6SvEZuHPgZ0haihZOcxlxOwg70ReisuZPaOT0LdT06AkHn4NIQPjfr5s4gxn8FeDj0ZbyO3Kf7hWT06WADjMUcHyg5j0men9RYJmf4AFNBVbjhO2MjAgr7B12f2HNdv7dGz9ox8KZjl4tr-d4_jfYBC9tp0lyY05pl9IItKL-0D1XXLjWjc9umIb4c-PuNJHcaeoTwtVWhaRjZHHJKFMYhPv509uny_ujm9PQEPz5ew392-_3JxfXvPWtbIt9Xjb64jH2b0zR1JdcVmUPIFZk_95RLx3o7rNMngpVYcR3_To6LjaI4JrU5dE7ojm9IScPmTAfmZzB-a8EG74LV3ep_oUeBOQ%3D%3D
munrocket
Comment 5
2022-10-22 02:14:43 PDT
Ok, looks like UBO performance is x10 slower than texture packing for big arrays. Maybe I should close this issue and open a new one about performance.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug