On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Andres Rodriguez <andresx7 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2017-04-25 02:01 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: >> >> On 24.04.2017 18:20, Andres Rodriguez wrote: >>> >>> Add a new context creation parameter to express a global context >>> priority. >>> >>> The priority ranking in descending order is as follows: >>> * AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_HIGH >>> * AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_NORMAL >>> * AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_LOW >>> >>> The driver will attempt to schedule work to the hardware according to >>> the priorities. No latency or throughput guarantees are provided by >>> this patch. >>> >>> This interface intends to service the EGL_IMG_context_priority >>> extension, and vulkan equivalents. >>> >>> v2: Instead of using flags, repurpose __pad >>> v3: Swap enum values of _NORMAL _HIGH for backwards compatibility >>> v4: Validate usermode priority and store it >>> v5: Move priority validation into amdgpu_ctx_ioctl(), headline reword >>> v6: add UAPI note regarding priorities requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN >>> v7: remove ctx->priority >>> v8: added AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_LOW, s/CAP_SYS_ADMIN/CAP_SYS_NICE >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7 at gmail.com> >> >> >> I didn't follow all the discussion, so feel free to shut me up if this >> has already been discussed, but... >> >> >> [snip] >>> >>> +/* Context priority level */ >>> +#define AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_NORMAL 0 >>> +#define AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_LOW 1 >>> +/* Selecting a priority above NORMAL requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN */ >>> +#define AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_HIGH 2 >>> +#define AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_NUM 3 >> >> >> I get that normal priority needs to be 0 for backwards compatibility, >> but having LOW between NORMAL and HIGH is still odd. Have you considered >> using signed integers as a way to fix that? > > > Thanks for the suggestion, that should make it a lot cleaner. Maybe make the range -1023 to 1023 for consistency with the similar proposed interface on Intel? https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2017-April/126155.html Alex > > Regards, > Andres > > >> >> (AMDGPU_CTX_PRIORITY_NUM doesn't seem to be used anywhere...) >> >> Cheers, >> Nicolai >> >> >>> + >>> struct drm_amdgpu_ctx_in { >>> /** AMDGPU_CTX_OP_* */ >>> __u32 op; >>> /** For future use, no flags defined so far */ >>> __u32 flags; >>> __u32 ctx_id; >>> - __u32 _pad; >>> + __u32 priority; >>> }; >>> >>> union drm_amdgpu_ctx_out { >>> struct { >>> __u32 ctx_id; >>> __u32 _pad; >>> } alloc; >>> >>> struct { >>> /** For future use, no flags defined so far */ >>> __u64 flags; >>> /** Number of resets caused by this context so far. */ >>> __u32 hangs; >>> /** Reset status since the last call of the ioctl. */ >>> __u32 reset_status; >>> } state; >>> }; >>> >>> union drm_amdgpu_ctx { >>> struct drm_amdgpu_ctx_in in; >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
