[PATCH] drm/doc/rfc: Introduce the merge plan for the Xe driver.

Thu Apr 6 07:07:52 UTC 2023

Hey,

On 2023-04-05 21:52, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Let’s establish a merge plan for Xe, by writing down clear pre-merge goals, in
> order to avoid unnecessary delays.
>
> This initial document starts with a TODO list containing items with clear and
> measurable key results. Xe’s initial pull request should only be sent to
> dri-devel after all the items are clearly resolved.
>
> Since many of them involve some level of a community consensus, in many cases,
> the consensus will be reached in follow-up patches to this document with more
> details of the API or helpers that will be developed or modified.
>
> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay at kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Strano <luis.strano at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst |   4 +
>   Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst    | 216 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 220 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
> index 476719771eef..e4f7b005138d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
> @@ -31,3 +31,7 @@ host such documentation:
>   .. toctree::
>   
>       i915_vm_bind.rst
> +
> +.. toctree::
> +
> +   xe.rst
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..1e3e7e9c67c3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
> +==========================
> +Xe – Merge Acceptance Plan
> +==========================
> +Xe is a new driver for Intel GPUs that supports both integrated and
> +discrete platforms starting with Tiger Lake (first Intel Xe Architecture).
> +
> +This document aims to establish a merge plan for the Xe, by writing down clear
> +pre-merge goals, in order to avoid unnecessary delays.
> +
> +Xe – Overview
> +=============
> +The main motivation of Xe is to have a fresh base to work from that is
> +unencumbered by older platforms, whilst also taking the opportunity to
> +rearchitect our driver to increase sharing across the drm subsystem, both
> +leveraging and allowing us to contribute more towards other shared components
> +like TTM and drm/scheduler.
> +
> +This is also an opportunity to start from the beginning with a clean uAPI that is
> +extensible by design and already aligned with the modern userspace needs. For
> +this reason, the memory model is solely based on GPU Virtual Address space
> +bind/unbind (‘VM_BIND’) of GEM buffer objects (BOs) and execution only supporting
> +explicit synchronization. With persistent mapping across the execution, the
> +userspace does not need to provide a list of all required mappings during each
> +submission.
> +
> +The new driver leverages a lot from i915. As for display, the intent is to share
> +the display code with the i915 driver so that there is maximum reuse there.
> +
> +As for the power management area, the goal is to have a much-simplified support
> +for the system suspend states (S-states), PCI device suspend states (D-states),
> +GPU/Render suspend states (R-states) and frequency management. It should leverage
> +as much as possible all the existent PCI-subsystem infrastructure (pm and
> +runtime_pm) and underlying firmware components such PCODE and GuC for the power
> +states and frequency decisions.
> +
> +Repository:
> +
> +https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel (branch drm-xe-next)
> +
> +Xe – Platforms
> +==============
> +Currently, Xe is already functional and has experimental support for multiple
> +platforms starting from Tiger Lake, with initial support in userspace implemented
> +in Mesa (for Iris and Anv, our OpenGL and Vulkan drivers), as well as in NEO
> +(for OpenCL and Level0).
> +
> +During a transition period, platforms will be supported by both Xe and i915.
> +However, the force_probe mechanism existent in both drivers will allow only one
> +official and by-default probe at a given time.
> +
> +For instance, in order to probe a DG2 which PCI ID is 0x5690 by Xe instead of
> +i915, the following set of parameters need to be used:
> +
> +```
> +i915.force_probe=!5690 xe.force_probe=5690
> +```
> +
> +In both drivers, the ‘.require_force_probe’ protection forces the user to use the
> +force_probe parameter while the driver is under development. This protection is
> +only removed when the support for the platform and the uAPI are stable. Stability
> +which needs to be demonstrated by CI results.
> +
> +In order to avoid user space regressions, i915 will continue to support all the
> +current platforms that are already out of this protection. Xe support will be
> +forever experimental and dependent on the usage of force_probe for these
> +platforms.
> +
> +When the time comes for Xe, the protection will be lifted on Xe and kept in i915.
> +
> +Xe driver will be protected with both STAGING Kconfig and force_probe. Changes in
> +the uAPI are expected while the driver is behind these protections. STAGING will
> +be removed when the driver uAPI gets to a mature state where we can guarantee the
> +‘no regression’ rule. Then force_probe will be lifted only for future platforms
> +that will be productized with Xe driver, but not with i915.
> +
> +Xe – Pre-Merge Goals
> +====================
> +
> +Drm_scheduler
> +-------------
> +Xe primarily uses Firmware based scheduling (GuC FW). However, it will use
> +drm_scheduler as the scheduler ‘frontend’ for userspace submission in order to
> +resolve syncobj and dma-buf implicit sync dependencies. However, drm_scheduler is
> +not yet prepared to handle the 1-to-1 relationship between drm_gpu_scheduler and
> +drm_sched_entity.
> +
> +Deeper changes to drm_scheduler should *not* be required to get Xe accepted, but
> +some consensus needs to be reached between Xe and other community drivers that
> +could also benefit from this work, for coupling FW based/assisted submission such
> +as the ARM’s new Mali GPU driver, and others.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, the patch series introducing Xe itself shall not
> +depend on any other patch touching drm_scheduler itself that was not yet merged
> +through drm-misc. This, by itself, already includes the reach of an agreement for
> +uniform 1 to 1 relationship implementation / usage across drivers.
> +
> +GPU VA
> +------
> +Two main goals of Xe are meeting together here:
> +
> +1) Have an uAPI that aligns with modern UMD needs.
> +
> +2) Early upstream engagement.
> +
> +RedHat engineers working on Nouveau proposed a new DRM feature to handle keeping
> +track of GPU virtual address mappings. This is still not merged upstream, but
> +this aligns very well with our goals and with our VM_BIND. The engagement with
> +upstream and the port of Xe towards GPUVA is already ongoing.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, Xe needs to be aligned with the GPU VA and working in
> +our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe and any needed GPUVA
> +related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by
> +maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next.
> +
> +DRM_VM_BIND
> +-----------
> +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to
> +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the
> +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to
> +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file
> +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers
> +vm_bind ioctls.
> +
> +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
> +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major
> +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some
> +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this
> +document.
> +
> +ASYNC VM_BIND
> +-------------
> +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
> +Xe merged, it is mandatory to have a cross-driver consensus and understanding how
> +to handle async VM_BIND and interactions with userspace memory fences. Ideally
> +with helper support so people don't get it wrong in all possible ways.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, the benefits of ASYNC VM_BIND and a discussion of
> +various flavors, error handling and a sample API should be documented here or in
> +a separate document pointed to by this document.
> +
> +Userptr integration and vm_bind
> +-------------------------------
> +Different drivers implement different ways of dealing with execution of userptr.
> +With multiple drivers currently introducing support to VM_BIND, the goal is to
> +aim for a DRM consensus on what’s the best way to have that support. To some
> +extent this is already getting addressed itself with the GPUVA where likely the
> +userptr will be a GPUVA with a NULL GEM call VM bind directly on the userptr.
> +However, there are more aspects around the rules for that and the usage of
> +mmu_notifiers, locking and other aspects.
> +
> +This task here has the goal of introducing a documentation of the basic rules.
> +
> +The documentation *needs* to first live in this document (API session below) and
> +then moved to another more specific document or at Xe level or at DRM level.
> +
> +Documentation should include:
> +
> + * The userptr part of the VM_BIND api.
> +
> + * Locking, including the page-faulting case.
> +
> + * O(1) complexity under VM_BIND.
> +
> +Some parts of userptr like mmu_notifiers should become GPUVA or DRM helpers when
> +the second driver supporting VM_BIND+userptr appears. Details to be defined when
> +the time comes.
> +
> +Long running compute: minimal data structure/scaffolding
> +--------------------------------------------------------
> +The generic scheduler code needs to include the handling of endless compute
> +contexts, with the minimal scaffolding for preempt-ctx fences (probably on the
> +drm_sched_entity) and making sure drm_scheduler can cope with the lack of job
> +completion fence.
> +
> +The goal is to achieve a consensus ahead of Xe initial pull-request, ideally with
> +this minimal drm/scheduler work, if needed, merged to drm-misc in a way that any
> +drm driver, including Xe, could re-use and add their own individual needs on top
> +in a next stage. However, this should not block the initial merge.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, the handling of the long running jobs and the minimal
> +scaffolding should be documented here or in a separate document pointed to by
> +this document.
> +
> +Display integration with i915
> +-----------------------------
> +In order to share the display code with the i915 driver so that there is maximum
> +reuse, the i915/display/ code is built twice, once for i915.ko and then for
> +xe.ko. Currently, the i915/display code in Xe tree is polluted with many 'ifdefs'
> +depending on the build target. The goal is to refactor both Xe and i915/display
> +code simultaneously in order to get a clean result before they land upstream, so
> +that display can already be part of the initial pull request towards drm-next.
> +
> +However, display code should not gate the acceptance of Xe in upstream. Xe
> +patches will be refactored in a way that display code can be removed, if needed,
> +from the first pull request of Xe towards drm-next. The expectation is that when
> +both drivers are part of the drm-tip, the introduction of cleaner patches will be
> +easier and speed up.
> +
> +Drm_exec
> +--------
> +Helper to make dma_resv locking for a big number of buffers is getting removed in
> +the drm_exec series proposed in https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/524376/
> +If that happens, Xe needs to change and incorporate the changes in the driver.
> +The goal is to engage with the Community to understand if the best approach is to
> +move that to the drivers that are using it or if we should keep the helpers in
> +place waiting for Xe to get merged.
> +
> +As a key measurable result, we need to have a community consensus documented in
> +this document and the Xe driver prepared for the changes, if necessary.
> +
> +Xe – uAPI high level overview
> +=============================
> +
> +...Warning: To be done in follow up patches after/when/where the main consensus in various items are individually reached.