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

[Kristian Høgsberg]

Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg at gmail.com> writes:

> "Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song at intel.com> writes:
>
>>> -----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).
>
> I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Michał's patch,
> update the kernel header and  then push it all.

All pushed now.

Kristian

>> 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;
>>