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

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:27:38PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:
> 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.

Nope, we need everything before I can pull in the kernel patch. Once that
happens then you can do the release/depency dance (of course don't include
those bits in your proposed patches yet).
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch