[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 4/4] drm/doc/rfc: i915 DG1 uAPI
Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com
Fri Apr 16 17:33:03 UTC 2021
On 4/16/2021 10:02 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 6:38 PM Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:04 AM Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com> wrote:
>>> Add an entry for the new uAPI needed for DG1.
>>>
>>> v2(Daniel):
>>> - include the overall upstreaming plan
>>> - add a note for mmap, there are differences here for TTM vs i915
>>> - bunch of other suggestions from Daniel
>>> v3:
>>> (Daniel)
>>> - add a note for set/get caching stuff
>>> - add some more docs for existing query and extensions stuff
>>> - add an actual code example for regions query
>>> - bunch of other stuff
>>> (Jason)
>>> - uAPI change(!):
>>> - try a simpler design with the placements extension
>>> - rather than have a generic setparam which can cover multiple
>>> use cases, have each extension be responsible for one thing
>>> only
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth at whitecape.org>
>>> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
>>> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> Cc: mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h | 255 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.rst | 139 +++++++++++++
>>> Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst | 4 +
>>> 3 files changed, 398 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.rst
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..2a82a452e9f2
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * Note that drm_i915_query_item and drm_i915_query are existing bits of uAPI.
>>> + * For the regions query we are just adding a new query id, so no actual new
>>> + * ioctl or anything, but including it here for reference.
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_query_item {
>>> +#define DRM_I915_QUERY_MEMORY_REGIONS 0xdeadbeaf
>>> + ....
>>> + __u64 query_id;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * When set to zero by userspace, this is filled with the size of the
>>> + * data to be written at the data_ptr pointer. The kernel sets this
>>> + * value to a negative value to signal an error on a particular query
>>> + * item.
>>> + */
>>> + __s32 length;
>>> +
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Data will be written at the location pointed by data_ptr when the
>>> + * value of length matches the length of the data to be written by the
>>> + * kernel.
>>> + */
>>> + __u64 data_ptr;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +struct drm_i915_query {
>>> + __u32 num_items;
>>> + /*
>>> + * Unused for now. Must be cleared to zero.
>>> + */
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + /*
>>> + * This points to an array of num_items drm_i915_query_item structures.
>>> + */
>>> + __u64 items_ptr;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_QUERY DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_QUERY, struct drm_i915_query)
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * enum drm_i915_gem_memory_class
>>> + */
>>> +enum drm_i915_gem_memory_class {
>>> + /** @I915_MEMORY_CLASS_SYSTEM: system memory */
>>> + I915_MEMORY_CLASS_SYSTEM = 0,
>>> + /** @I915_MEMORY_CLASS_DEVICE: device local-memory */
>>> + I915_MEMORY_CLASS_DEVICE,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance {
>>> + /** @memory_class: see enum drm_i915_gem_memory_class */
>>> + __u16 memory_class;
>>> +
>>> + /** @memory_instance: which instance */
>>> + __u16 memory_instance;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_i915_memory_region_info
>>> + *
>>> + * Describes one region as known to the driver.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note that we reserve quite a lot of stuff here for potential future work. As
>>> + * an example we might want expose the capabilities(see caps) for a given
>>> + * region, which could include things like if the region is CPU
>>> + * mappable/accessible etc.
>> I get caps but I'm seriously at a loss as to what the rest of this
>> would be used for. Why are caps and flags both there and separate?
>> Flags are typically something you set, not query. Also, what's with
>> rsvd1 at the end? This smells of substantial over-building to me.
>>
>> I thought to myself, "maybe I'm missing a future use-case" so I looked
>> at the internal tree and none of this is being used there either.
>> This indicates to me that either I'm missing something and there's
>> code somewhere I don't know about or, with three years of building on
>> internal branches, we still haven't proven that any of this is needed.
>> If it's the latter, which I strongly suspect, maybe we should drop the
>> unnecessary bits and only add them back in if and when we have proof
>> that they're useful.
>>
>> To be clear, I don't mind the query API as such and the class/instance
>> stuff seems fine and I really like being able to get the sizes
>> directly. What concerns me is all this extra future-proofing that we
>> have zero proof is actually useful. In my experience, when you build
>> out like this without so much as a use-case, you always end up
>> building the wrong thing.
>>
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_memory_region_info {
>>> + /** @region: class:instance pair encoding */
>>> + struct drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance region;
>>> +
>>> + /** @rsvd0: MBZ */
>>> + __u32 rsvd0;
>>> +
>>> + /** @caps: MBZ */
>>> + __u64 caps;
>>> +
>>> + /** @flags: MBZ */
>>> + __u64 flags;
>>> +
>>> + /** @probed_size: Memory probed by the driver (-1 = unknown) */
>>> + __u64 probed_size;
>>> +
>>> + /** @unallocated_size: Estimate of memory remaining (-1 = unknown) */
>>> + __u64 unallocated_size;
>>> +
>>> + /** @rsvd1: MBZ */
>>> + __u64 rsvd1[8];
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_i915_query_memory_regions
>>> + *
>>> + * Region info query enumerates all regions known to the driver by filling in
>>> + * an array of struct drm_i915_memory_region_info structures.
>>> + *
>>> + * Example for getting the list of supported regions:
>>> + *
>>> + * .. code-block:: C
>>> + *
>>> + * struct drm_i915_query_memory_regions *info;
>>> + * struct drm_i915_query_item item = {
>>> + * .query_id = DRM_I915_QUERY_MEMORY_REGIONS;
>>> + * };
>>> + * struct drm_i915_query query = {
>>> + * .num_items = 1,
>>> + * .items_ptr = (uintptr_t)&item,
>>> + * };
>>> + * int err, i;
>>> + *
>>> + * // First query the size of the blob we need, this needs to be large
>>> + * // enough to hold our array of regions. The kernel will fill out the
>>> + * // item.length for us, which is the number of bytes we need.
>>> + * err = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_QUERY, &query);
>>> + * if (err) ...
>>> + *
>>> + * info = calloc(1, item.length);
>>> + * // Now that we allocated the required number of bytes, we call the ioctl
>>> + * // again, this time with the data_ptr pointing to our newly allocated
>>> + * // blob, which the kernel can then populate with the all the region info.
>>> + * item.data_ptr = (uintptr_t)&info,
>>> + *
>>> + * err = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_QUERY, &query);
>>> + * if (err) ...
>>> + *
>>> + * // We can now access each region in the array
>>> + * for (i = 0; i < info->num_regions; i++) {
>>> + * struct drm_i915_memory_region_info mr = info->regions[i];
>>> + * u16 class = mr.region.class;
>>> + * u16 instance = mr.region.instance;
>>> + *
>>> + * ....
>>> + * }
>>> + *
>>> + * free(info);
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_query_memory_regions {
>>> + /** @num_regions: Number of supported regions */
>>> + __u32 num_regions;
>>> +
>>> + /** @rsvd: MBZ */
>>> + __u32 rsvd[3];
>> Why pad to 16B instead of 8B?
>>
>>> +
>>> + /** @regions: Info about each supported region */
>>> + struct drm_i915_memory_region_info regions[];
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +#define DRM_I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT 0xdeadbeaf
>>> +#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT, struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext)
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext
>>> + *
>>> + * Existing gem_create behaviour, with added extension support.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note that in the future we want to have our buffer flags here, at least for
>>> + * the stuff that is immutable. Previously we would have two ioctls, one to
>>> + * create the object with gem_create, and another to apply various parameters,
>>> + * however this creates some ambiguity for the params which are considered
>>> + * immutable. Also in general we're phasing out the various SET/GET ioctls.
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext {
>>> + /**
>>> + * @size: Requested size for the object.
>>> + *
>>> + * The (page-aligned) allocated size for the object will be returned.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note that for some devices we have might have further minimum
>>> + * page-size restrictions(larger than 4K), like for device local-memory.
>>> + * However in general the final size here should always reflect any
>>> + * rounding up, if for example using the I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS
>>> + * extension to place the object in device local-memory.
>>> + */
>>> + __u64 size;
>>> + /**
>>> + * @handle: Returned handle for the object.
>>> + *
>>> + * Object handles are nonzero.
>>> + */
>>> + __u32 handle;
>>> + /** @flags: MBZ */
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + /**
>>> + * @extensions: The chain of extensions to apply to this object.
>>> + *
>>> + * This will be useful in the future when we need to support several
>>> + * different extensions, and we need to apply more than one when
>>> + * creating the object. See struct i915_user_extension.
>>> + *
>>> + * If we don't supply any extensions then we get the same old gem_create
>>> + * behaviour.
>>> + *
>>> + * For I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS usage see
>>> + * drm_i915_gem_create_ext_memory_regions
>>> + */
>>> +#define I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS 0
>>> + __u64 extensions;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext_memory_regions
>>> + *
>>> + * I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS extension:
>>> + *
>>> + * Set the object with the desired set of placements/regions in priority
>>> + * order(each entry must be unique and supported by the device), as an array of
>>> + * drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance, or an equivalent layout of class:instance
>>> + * pair encodings. See DRM_I915_QUERY_MEMORY_REGIONS for how to query the
>>> + * supported regions for a device.
>>> + *
>>> + * As an example, on discrete devices, if we wish to set the placement as
>>> + * device local-memory we can do something like:
>>> + *
>>> + * .. code-block:: C
>>> + *
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance region_lmem = {
>>> + * .memory_class = I915_MEMORY_CLASS_DEVICE,
>>> + * .memory_instance = 0,
>>> + * };
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext_memory_regions regions = {
>>> + * .base = { .name = I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS },
>>> + * .regions = (uintptr_t)®ion_lmem,
>>> + * .num_regions = 1,
>>> + * };
>>> + * struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext create_ext = {
>>> + * .size = 16 * PAGE_SIZE,
>>> + * .extensions = (uintptr_t)®ions,
>>> + * };
>>> + *
>>> + * int err = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT, &create_ext);
>>> + * if (err) ...
>>> + *
>>> + * At which point we get the object handle in create_ext.handle, if all went
>>> + * well.
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_i915_gem_create_ext_memory_regions {
>>> + /** @base: Extension link. See struct i915_user_extension. */
>>> + struct i915_user_extension base;
>>> +
>>> + /** @pad: MBZ */
>>> + __u32 pad;
>>> + /** @num_regions: Number of elements in the placements array. */
>>> + __u32 num_regions;
>>> + /**
>>> + * @regions: The placements array.
>>> + *
>>> + * Should be an array of drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance.
>>> + */
>>> + __u64 regions;
>>> +};
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.rst
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..52f1db15ae94
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.rst
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
>>> +=========================
>>> +I915 DG1/LMEM RFC Section
>>> +=========================
>>> +
>>> +Upstream plan
>>> +=============
>>> +For upstream the overall plan for landing all the DG1 stuff and turning it for
>>> +real, with all the uAPI bits is:
>>> +
>>> +* Merge basic HW enabling of DG1(still without pciid)
>>> +* Merge the uAPI bits behind special CONFIG_BROKEN(or so) flag
>>> + * At this point we can still make changes, but importantly this lets us
>>> + start running IGTs which can utilize local-memory in CI
>>> +* Convert over to TTM, make sure it all keeps working
>>> +* Add pciid for DG1 and turn on uAPI for real
>>> +
>>> +New object placement and region query uAPI
>>> +==========================================
>>> +Starting from DG1 we need to give userspace the ability to allocate buffers from
>>> +device local-memory. Currently the driver supports gem_create, which can place
>>> +buffers in system memory via shmem, and the usual assortment of other
>>> +interfaces, like dumb buffers and userptr.
>>> +
>>> +To support this new capability, while also providing a uAPI which will work
>>> +beyond just DG1, we propose to offer three new bits of uAPI:
>>> +
>>> +Query uAPI
>>> +----------
>>> +Existing query interface
>>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> +.. kernel-doc:: include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
>>> + :functions: drm_i915_query_item drm_i915_query
>>> +
>>> +DRM_I915_QUERY_MEMORY_REGIONS
>>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> +New query ID which allows userspace to discover the list of supported memory
>>> +regions(like system-memory and local-memory) for a given device. We identify
>>> +each region with a class and instance pair, which should be unique. The class
>>> +here would be DEVICE or SYSTEM, and the instance would be zero, on platforms
>>> +like DG1.
>>> +
>>> +Side note: The class/instance design is borrowed from our existing engine uAPI,
>>> +where we describe every physical engine in terms of its class, and the
>>> +particular instance, since we can have more than one per class.
>>> +
>>> +In the future we also want to expose more information which can further
>>> +describe the capabilities of a region.
>>> +
>>> +.. kernel-doc:: Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> + :functions: drm_i915_gem_memory_class drm_i915_gem_memory_class_instance drm_i915_memory_region_info drm_i915_query_memory_regions
>>> +
>>> +GEM_CREATE_EXT
>>> +--------------
>>> +New ioctl which is basically just gem_create but now allows userspace to
>>> +provide a chain of possible extensions. Note that if we don't provide any
>>> +extensions then we get the exact same behaviour as gem_create.
>>> +
>>> +Side note: We also need to support PXP[1] in the near future, which is also
>>> +applicable to integrated platforms, and adds its own gem_create_ext extension,
>>> +which basically lets userspace mark a buffer as "protected".
>> A bit off-topic, but do we really need a whole extension for that? Or
>> can we just throw a bit in flags? I'm a big fan of landing create_ext
>> anyway; I like extensibility. I'm just questioning whether or not
>> that one needs its own struct.
> Yeah for PXP just a flag is all we need. If we cant/don't want to
> stuff that into the main structure then we could do an empty
> extension: It's presence would indicate that we want PXP enabled.
There is actually a potential future use for the PXP extension as there
are different PXP object use types; we currently plan on supporting only
one, but I'd prefer to keep the extension option open for potential
future expansion.
> Definitely we shouldn't build the entire setparam machinery for gem bo
> copied over from ctx_create_ext while Jason is working on around 100
> or so igt+kernel patches to undo the unecessary uapi complexity this
> caused over there in ctx land.
>
> Also adding Daniele and Lionel to keep them in the loop here on what's
> happening to gem_create_ext. Daniele I think for merging we need a)
> resubmit the pxp patches to dri-devel per new process that we have
> since 2-3 weeks now and then b) land the uapi bits only after this
> patch here from Matt has landed, to make sure we don't end up with the
> wrong version of gem_create_ext. Is that ok?
Sure. I might send a new rev for review before this lands, but I'll note
the dependency in the cover letter and rebase and re-send afterwards.
Daniele
> -Daniel
>
>> --Jason
>>
>>
>>> +.. kernel-doc:: Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> + :functions: drm_i915_gem_create_ext
>>> +
>>> +It's raining extensions
>>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> +As noted above, extensions can be supplied as a chain in gem_create_ext using the
>>> +existing i915_user_extension. This will be useful in the future when we need to
>>> +support several different extensions, and we need to apply more than one when
>>> +creating the object.
>>> +
>>> +.. kernel-doc:: include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
>>> + :functions: i915_user_extension
>>> +
>>> +I915_GEM_CREATE_EXT_MEMORY_REGIONS
>>> +----------------------------------
>>> +Implemented as an extension for gem_create_ext, we would now allow userspace to
>>> +optionally provide an immutable list of preferred placements at creation time,
>>> +in priority order, for a given buffer object. For the placements we expect
>>> +them each to use the class/instance encoding, as per the output of the regions
>>> +query. Having the list in priority order will be useful in the future when
>>> +placing an object, say during eviction.
>>> +
>>> +.. kernel-doc:: Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_gem_lmem.h
>>> + :functions: drm_i915_gem_create_ext_memory_regions
>>> +
>>> +One fair criticism here is that this seems a little over-engineered[2]. If we
>>> +just consider DG1 then yes, a simple gem_create.flags or something is totally
>>> +all that's needed to tell the kernel to allocate the buffer in local-memory or
>>> +whatever. However looking to the future we need uAPI which can also support
>>> +upcoming Xe HP multi-tile architecture in a sane way, where there can be
>>> +multiple local-memory instances for a given device, and so using both class and
>>> +instance in our uAPI to describe regions is desirable, although specifically
>>> +for DG1 it's uninteresting, since we only have a single local-memory instance.
>>> +
>>> +Existing uAPI issues
>>> +====================
>>> +Some potential issues we still need to resolve.
>>> +
>>> +I915 MMAP
>>> +---------
>>> +In i915 there are multiple ways to MMAP GEM object, including mapping the same
>>> +object using different mapping types(WC vs WB), i.e multiple active mmaps per
>>> +object. TTM expects one MMAP at most for the lifetime of the object. If it
>>> +turns out that we have to backpedal here, there might be some potential
>>> +userspace fallout.
>>> +
>>> +I915 SET/GET_CACHING
>>> +--------------------
>>> +In i915 we have set/get_caching ioctl. TTM doesn't let us to change this, but
>>> +DG1 doesn't support non-snooped pcie transactions, so we can just always
>>> +allocate as WB for smem-only buffers. If/when our hw gains support for
>>> +non-snooped pcie transactions then we must fix this mode at allocation time as
>>> +a new GEM extension.
>>> +
>>> +This is related to the mmap problem, because in general (meaning, when we're
>>> +not running on intel cpus) the cpu mmap must not, ever, be inconsistent with
>>> +allocation mode.
>>> +
>>> +Possible idea is to let the kernel picks the mmap mode for userspace from the
>>> +following table:
>>> +
>>> +smem-only: WB. Userspace does not need to call clflush.
>>> +
>>> +smem+lmem: We allocate uncached memory, and give userspace a WC mapping
>>> +for when the buffer is in smem, and WC when it's in lmem. GPU does snooped
>>> +access, which is a bit inefficient.
>>> +
>>> +lmem only: always WC
>>> +
>>> +This means on discrete you only get a single mmap mode, all others must be
>>> +rejected. That's probably going to be a new default mode or something like
>>> +that.
>>> +
>>> +Links
>>> +=====
>>> +[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/86798/
>>> +
>>> +[2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/5599#note_553791
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
>>> index a8621f7dab8b..05670442ca1b 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/index.rst
>>> @@ -15,3 +15,7 @@ host such documentation:
>>>
>>> * Once the code has landed move all the documentation to the right places in
>>> the main core, helper or driver sections.
>>> +
>>> +.. toctree::
>>> +
>>> + i915_gem_lmem.rst
>>> --
>>> 2.26.3
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list