[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: New libdrm interface to create unbound wc user mappings for objects

[Akash Goel]

On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 13:45 +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 05:21:53PM +0530, akash.goel at intel.com wrote:
> > From: Akash Goel <akash.goel at intel.com>
> > 
> > A new libdrm interface 'drm_intel_gem_bo_map_wc' is provided by this
> > patch. Through this interface Gfx clients can create write combining
> > virtual mappings of the Gem object. It will provide the same funtionality
> > of 'mmap_gtt' interface without the constraints of limited aperture space,
> > but provided clients handles the linear to tile conversion on their own.
> > This patch is intended for improving the CPU write operation performance,
> > as with such mapping, writes are almost 50% faster than with mmap_gtt.
> > Also it avoids the Cache flush after update from CPU side, when object is
> > passed on to GPU, which will be the case if regular mmap interface is used.
> > This type of mapping is specially useful in case of sub-region
> > update, i.e. when only a portion of the object is to be updated.
> > Also there is a support for the unsynchronized version of this interface
> > named 'drm_intel_gem_bo_map_wc_unsynchronized', through which wc virtual
> > mappings, but unsynchronized one, can be created of the Gem object.
> > To ensure the cache coherency, before using this mapping, the GTT domain has
> > been reused here. This provides the required Cache flush if the object is in
> > CPU domain or synchronization against the concurrent rendering
> > 
> > The drm_i915_gem_mmap structure (for the DRM_I915_GEM_MMAP_IOCTL) has been
> > extended with a new flags field (defaulting to 0 for existent users). In
> > order for userspace to detect the extended ioctl, a new parameter
> > I915_PARAM_HAS_EXT_MMAP has been added for versioning the ioctl interface.
> > 
> > v2: Aligned with the v2 of the corresponding kernel patch (Chris)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Akash Goel <akash.goel at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> 
> From a quick glance at the patch:
> 
> It looks like you copy/pasted the map() implementation and changed a few
> things here and there instead of adding flag to drm_intel_gem_bo_map()
> and reusing the current code.
> 
> Can we expose another version of map that takes flags (_WC,
> _UNSYNCHRONIZED, ...) instead of starting to have every single
> combination possible?
> 

Thanks for the review. Yes its almost a copy-paste of the 'mmap_gtt'
implementation.
Yes adding a new flag parameter could be an alternative.

> Do we really need a separate mem_wc_virtual? Using _map() or _map_wc()
> in an exclusively way makes some sense to me.
> 

Initially made _map() & _map_wc() exclusive to each other. Had a
discussion with Chris, he suggested to maintain all 3 mappings i.e allow
them to co-exist.  

> With the introduction of mem_wc_virtual, you left aside the vma cache
> handling and so we'll never end up unmapping it, drm_intel_gem_bo_free()
> doesn't unmap it either, ...
> 
Sorry I completely missed this. Thanks for spotting this. Will do the
needful. 

Best Regards
Akash

> I'd just expect users to use _unmap().
>