On 18/07/17 09:55 PM, zhoucm1 wrote: > On 2017å¹´07æ??18æ?¥ 21:57, Christian König wrote: >> Am 18.07.2017 um 04:29 schrieb zhoucm1: >>> On 2017å¹´07æ??18æ?¥ 01:35, Christian König wrote: >>>> Am 17.07.2017 um 19:22 schrieb Marek Olšák: >>>>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I can take a look at it, I just won't have time until next week >>>>>>> most likely. >>>>>> I've taken a look, and it's seemingly more complicated than I'm >>>>>> expecting I'd want to land in Mesa before 17.2 ships, I'd really >>>>>> prefer to just push the new libdrm_amdgpu api from this patch. If I >>>>>> have to port all the current radv code to the new API, I'll most >>>>>> definitely get something wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adding the new API so far looks like >>>>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied/drm/log/?h=drm-amdgpu-cs-submit-raw >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied/drm/commit/?h=drm-amdgpu-cs-submit-raw&id=e7f85d0ca617fa41e72624780c9035df132e23c4 >>>>>> >>>>>> being the API, and whether it should take a uint32_t context id or >>>>>> context handle left as an open question in the last patch in the >>>>>> series. >>>>>> >>>>>> However to hook this into radv or radeonsi will take a bit of >>>>>> rewriting of a lot of code that is probably a bit more fragile than >>>>>> I'd like for this sort of surgery at this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd actually suspect if we do want to proceed with this type of >>>>>> interface, we might be better doing it all in common mesa code, and >>>>>> maybe bypassing libdrm_amdgpu altogether, which I suppose the API >>>>>> I've >>>>>> written here is mostly already doing. >>>>> Well, we plan to stop using the BO list ioctl. The interface has >>>>> bo_list_handle in it. Will we just set it to 0 when add the chunk for >>>>> the inlined buffer list i.e. what radeon has? >>>> >>>> Yeah, exactly that was my thinking as well. >>> Just one thought, Could we remove and not use bo list at all? >>> Instead, we expose api like amdgpu_bo_make_resident with proper >>> privilege to user mode? That way, we will obviously short CS ioctl. >> >> Not really, but I'm working on per process resources now. E.g. you >> specify a flag that a resource is always bound to the process and >> always used instead of specifying it every time. >> >> The tricky part is that you then can't export that resource to other >> processes, so it only works for buffers/textures which aren't >> exchanged with anybody. > Yeah, Making bo resident obviously doesn't work for imported/foreign > BOs, but imported BOs are always pinned when exported to others, aren't > they? Only while being shared between different GPUs, not between different processes on the same GPU (e.g. DRI3). We'll still need to use some kind of BO list for that case. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
