On 19/01/2022 15:08, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2022 at 04:55:35PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
Proposal to standardise the fdinfo text format as optionally output by DRM drivers.
Idea is that a simple but, well defined, spec will enable generic userspace tools to be written while at the same time avoiding a more heavy handed approach of adding a mid-layer to DRM.
i915 implements a subset of the spec, everything apart from the memory stats currently, and a matching intel_gpu_top tool exists.
Open is to see if AMD can migrate to using the proposed GPU utilisation key-value pairs, or if they are not workable to see whether to go vendor specific, or if a standardised alternative can be found which is workable for both drivers.
Same for the memory utilisation key-value pairs proposal.
v2:
- Update for removal of name and pid.
v3:
- 'Drm-driver' tag will be obtained from struct drm_driver.name. (Daniel)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com Cc: David M Nieto David.Nieto@amd.com Cc: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch Cc: Daniel Stone daniel@fooishbar.org Cc: Chris Healy cphealy@gmail.com Acked-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com
I'm assuming this ack here and later on is a "amdgpu plans to use this too" kind of affair. Especially also in the lights of eventually using matching semantics for cgroups and everything else tied to gpu execution resource management.
If not I'm mildly worried that we're creating fake-standard stuff here which cannot actually be used by anything resembling driver-agnostic userspace.
Hard to say how much adoption there would be.
At least on the statement of that the proposed spec cannot be used for driver agnostic userspace, do you have concrete concerns with the spec I proposed, or are just going by the lack of continuous engagement by any third party?
Apart from AMD, during past postings Daniel Stone also had positive feedback (along the lines of "works the driver I am familiar with"). I don't know if I have missed someone else who provided feedback, hope not.
There is of course the option of dropping the idea of trying to document a common spec, or to do anything cross-driver at this point. AFAIR it was your push to try this, and I agreed it would be a good thing if it worked out. But given AMD already exposes stuff in fdinfo, I don't think it would be a blocker for merging the i915 side even if we decided to drop the standardisation effort for now. Given I am maintaining this i915 code from ~2018 and there is a lot of interest from users it would be good to put it in.
Regards,
Tvrtko