| Message ID | 148B1B7A67D1C24B9EF0BE42EA4977064E408E32@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
"Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song@intel.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hoegsberg@gmail.com [mailto:hoegsberg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Kristian H?gsberg >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM >> To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> >> Cc: Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski@intel.com>; intel- >> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben Widawsky >> <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >> >> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> >> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On >> Behalf >> >> Of Micha? Winiarski >> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM >> >> To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri- >> devel@lists.freedesktop.org; >> >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >> >> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >> >> >> >> Softpin allows userspace to take greater control of GPU virtual address >> >> space and eliminates the need of relocations. It can also be used to >> >> mirror addresses between GPU and CPU (shared virtual memory). >> >> Calls to drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc are still required to build the list of >> >> drm_i915_gem_exec_objects at exec time, but no entries in relocs are >> >> created. Self-relocs don't make any sense for softpinned objects and can >> >> indicate a programming errors, thus are forbidden. Softpinned objects >> >> are marked by asterisk in debug dumps. >> >> >> >> Cc: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com> >> >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net> >> >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <nanhai.zou@intel.com> >> >> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> >> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> >> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> >> Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> >> >> --- >> >> include/drm/i915_drm.h | 4 +- >> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.c | 9 +++ >> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 1 + >> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 176 >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_priv.h | 7 ++ >> >> 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >> > >> > Will anybody help to push the patch to libdrm? Beignet highly depend on >> this to implement ocl2.0 svm. >> >> Is the kernel patch upstream? > > Yes, the kernel patch already merged, see: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/commit/?id=506a8e87d8d2746b9e9d2433503fe237c54e4750 > > I find below line of code in libdrm does not match the kernel version. The kernel patch defined as: > "#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)", but this patch defined it as (1<<3). I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Micha?'s patch, update the kernel header and then push it all. Kristian > Hello Michal, > > Could you help to rebase the patch against: > [Intel-gfx] [PATCH libdrm v4 0/2] 48-bit virtual address support in i915 > I think we need both 48bit & softpin in libdrm. > > diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h > index ded43b1..2b99fc6 100644 > --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h > +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h > @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait { > #define I915_PARAM_REVISION 32 > #define I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_TOTAL 33 > #define I915_PARAM_EU_TOTAL 34 > +#define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SOFTPIN 37 > > typedef struct drm_i915_getparam { > int param; > @@ -680,7 +681,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 { > #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE (1<<0) > #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT (1<<1) > #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2) > -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE<<1) > +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<3) > +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1) > __u64 flags; >
Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg@gmail.com> writes: > "Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song@intel.com> writes: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: hoegsberg@gmail.com [mailto:hoegsberg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >>> Kristian H?gsberg >>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM >>> To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> >>> Cc: Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski@intel.com>; intel- >>> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben Widawsky >>> <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >>> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On >>> Behalf >>> >> Of Micha? Winiarski >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM >>> >> To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri- >>> devel@lists.freedesktop.org; >>> >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org >>> >> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >>> >> >>> >> Softpin allows userspace to take greater control of GPU virtual address >>> >> space and eliminates the need of relocations. It can also be used to >>> >> mirror addresses between GPU and CPU (shared virtual memory). >>> >> Calls to drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc are still required to build the list of >>> >> drm_i915_gem_exec_objects at exec time, but no entries in relocs are >>> >> created. Self-relocs don't make any sense for softpinned objects and can >>> >> indicate a programming errors, thus are forbidden. Softpinned objects >>> >> are marked by asterisk in debug dumps. >>> >> >>> >> Cc: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com> >>> >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net> >>> >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <nanhai.zou@intel.com> >>> >> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> >>> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> >>> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> >>> >> --- >>> >> include/drm/i915_drm.h | 4 +- >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.c | 9 +++ >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 1 + >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 176 >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_priv.h | 7 ++ >>> >> 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >>> > >>> > Will anybody help to push the patch to libdrm? Beignet highly depend on >>> this to implement ocl2.0 svm. >>> >>> Is the kernel patch upstream? >> >> Yes, the kernel patch already merged, see: >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/commit/?id=506a8e87d8d2746b9e9d2433503fe237c54e4750 >> >> I find below line of code in libdrm does not match the kernel version. The kernel patch defined as: >> "#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)", but this patch defined it as (1<<3). > > I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Micha?'s patch, > update the kernel header and then push it all. All pushed now. Kristian >> Hello Michal, >> >> Could you help to rebase the patch against: >> [Intel-gfx] [PATCH libdrm v4 0/2] 48-bit virtual address support in i915 >> I think we need both 48bit & softpin in libdrm. >> >> diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> index ded43b1..2b99fc6 100644 >> --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait { >> #define I915_PARAM_REVISION 32 >> #define I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_TOTAL 33 >> #define I915_PARAM_EU_TOTAL 34 >> +#define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SOFTPIN 37 >> >> typedef struct drm_i915_getparam { >> int param; >> @@ -680,7 +681,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 { >> #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE (1<<0) >> #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT (1<<1) >> #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2) >> -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE<<1) >> +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<3) >> +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1) >> __u64 flags; >>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kristian Høgsberg [mailto:hoegsberg@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 4:09 AM > To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com>; krh@bitplanet.net; Winiarski, > Michal <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben > Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Yang, > Rong R <rong.r.yang@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin > > Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg@gmail.com> writes: > > > "Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song@intel.com> writes: > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: hoegsberg@gmail.com [mailto:hoegsberg@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of > >>> Kristian H?gsberg > >>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM > >>> To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> > >>> Cc: Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski@intel.com>; intel- > >>> gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Ben > Widawsky > >>> <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin > >>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@intel.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> -----Original Message----- > >>> >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On > >>> Behalf > >>> >> Of Micha? Winiarski > >>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM > >>> >> To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > >>> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>; dri- > >>> devel@lists.freedesktop.org; > >>> >> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > >>> >> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin > >>> >> > >>> >> Softpin allows userspace to take greater control of GPU virtual > address > >>> >> space and eliminates the need of relocations. It can also be used to > >>> >> mirror addresses between GPU and CPU (shared virtual memory). > >>> >> Calls to drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc are still required to build the list of > >>> >> drm_i915_gem_exec_objects at exec time, but no entries in relocs > are > >>> >> created. Self-relocs don't make any sense for softpinned objects and > can > >>> >> indicate a programming errors, thus are forbidden. Softpinned > objects > >>> >> are marked by asterisk in debug dumps. > >>> >> > >>> >> Cc: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com> > >>> >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@bitplanet.net> > >>> >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <nanhai.zou@intel.com> > >>> >> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> > >>> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> > >>> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Micha? Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > >>> >> --- > >>> >> include/drm/i915_drm.h | 4 +- > >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.c | 9 +++ > >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 1 + > >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 176 > >>> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>> >> intel/intel_bufmgr_priv.h | 7 ++ > >>> >> 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > >>> > > >>> > Will anybody help to push the patch to libdrm? Beignet highly depend > on > >>> this to implement ocl2.0 svm. > >>> > >>> Is the kernel patch upstream? > >> > >> Yes, the kernel patch already merged, see: > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm- > intel/commit/?id=506a8e87d8d2746b9e9d2433503fe237c54e4750 > >> > >> I find below line of code in libdrm does not match the kernel version. The > kernel patch defined as: > >> "#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)", but this patch defined it as > (1<<3). > > > > I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Micha?'s patch, > > update the kernel header and then push it all. > > All pushed now. Thanks. We have tried some basic OpenCL tests. Both patches work! I have another question, does KMD allow soft-pin a bo at zero address? I have tried to pin a bo with the size of 64KB at zero address in Beignet. It can succeed. But I met some random failure with bo_exec() returning -EINVAL. I am trying to figure out why. So I want to confirm is it allowed by KMD? Thanks! Ruiling
diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h index ded43b1..2b99fc6 100644 --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait { #define I915_PARAM_REVISION 32 #define I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_TOTAL 33 #define I915_PARAM_EU_TOTAL 34 +#define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SOFTPIN 37 typedef struct drm_i915_getparam { int param; @@ -680,7 +681,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 { #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE (1<<0) #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT (1<<1) #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2) -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE<<1) +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<3) +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1) __u64 flags; _______________________________________________