[Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:24:29AM +0000, Song, Ruiling wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hoegsberg at gmail.com [mailto:hoegsberg at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Kristian H?gsberg
> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM
> > To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song at intel.com>
> > Cc: Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski at intel.com>; intel-
> > gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Ben Widawsky
> > <ben at bwidawsk.net>; dri-devel at 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 at intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org] On
> > Behalf
> > >> Of Micha? Winiarski
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM
> > >> To: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>; dri-
> > devel at lists.freedesktop.org;
> > >> mesa-dev at 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 at intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh at bitplanet.net>
> > >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <nanhai.zou at intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at 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).

Please always regenerate the entire headers from the kernel sources using

$ make headers_install

Then copy the headers from the kernel's usr/include/drm to libdrm. Never
patch i915_drm.h manually.

Thanks, Daniel

> 
> 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;
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch