[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v6 17/19] drm/i915: Wa32bitGeneralStateOffset & Wa32bitInstructionBaseOffset

[Michel Thierry]

On 8/6/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:14:33PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:
>> On 8/5/2015 4:58 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:24:01PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:
>>>> There are some allocations that must be only referenced by 32-bit
>>>> offsets. To limit the chances of having the first 4GB already full,
>>>> objects not requiring this workaround use DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW/
>>>> DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags
>>>>
>>>> In specific, any resource used with flat/heapless (0x00000000-0xfffff000)
>>>> General State Heap (GSH) or Instruction State Heap (ISH) must be in a
>>>> 32-bit range, because the General State Offset and Instruction State
>>>> Offset are limited to 32-bits.
>>>>
>>>> Objects must have EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag to indicate if
>>>> they can be allocated above the 32-bit address range. To limit the
>>>> chances of having the first 4GB already full, objects will use
>>>> DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW + DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags when possible.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Changed flag logic from neeeds_32b, to supports_48b.
>>>> v3: Moved 48-bit support flag back to exec_object. (Chris, Daniel)
>>>> v4: Split pin flags into PIN_ZONE_4G and PIN_HIGH; update PIN_OFFSET_MASK
>>>> to use last PIN_ defined instead of hard-coded value; use correct limit
>>>> check in eb_vma_misplaced. (Chris)
>>>> v5: Don't touch PIN_OFFSET_MASK and update workaround comment (Chris)
>>>> v6: Apply pin-high for ggtt too (Chris)
>>>> v7: Handle simultaneous pin-high and pin-mappable end correctly (Akash)
>>>>      Fix check for entries currently using +4GB addresses, use min_t and
>>>>      other polish in object_bind_to_vm (Chris)
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>> Cc: Akash Goel <akash.goel at intel.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> (v4)
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
>>>
>>> For the record, where can I find the mesa patches for this? I think for
>>> simple things like this a References: line point to the relevant UMD
>>> patches in mailing-list archives would be great.
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>
>> Here they are,
>>
>> References:
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-July/085501.html and
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-July/088003.html
>
> Sounds like there's still another revision we need to do on those?

Yes, a couple of changes, set/clear functions internal in libdrm and 
update the symbol-check test.

I put it on hold, because I was also asked to not include the libdrm 
changes until the updated kernel header 
(EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag) was merged.

Then I also need to create a libdrm release, and update mesa's 
dependency to this new version number.

-Michel