On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:34:55AM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:57:39PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:13:11PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > We've discussed a bit how to get the gem/gt team better integrated > > > > and collaborate more with the wider community and agreed to the > > > > following: > > > > > > > > - all gem/gt patches are reviewed on dri-devel for now. That's > > > > overkill, but in the past there was definitely too little of that. > > > > > > > > - i915-gem folks are encouraged to cross review core patches from > > > > other teams > > > > > > > > - big features (especially uapi changes) need to be discussed in an > > > > rfc patch that documents the interface and big picture design, > > > > before we get lost in the details of the code > > > > > > > > - Also a rough TODO (can be refined as we go ofc) to get gem/gt back > > > > on track, like we've e.g. done with DAL/DC to get that in shape. > > > > > > I personally think there should be a lower bar for discussing and > > > editing the TODO items than via patches on the mailing list. Granted, > > > the TODO file enforces the discussion happens at a large enough > > > audience, but for at least some of the items I'd suggest filing gitlab > > > issues [1], with todo label, and tracking there. > > I also don't like the todo list in files and I agree that gitlab issues > section should be better... > > > In general yes, and I'd go even further: it's up to each team/contributor > > how they track review feedback and further work, whether that's gitlab or > > some notes or just in their heads. > > > > This is a different situation here, and the "changes require big audience" > > is a feature, not a bug. But it is a very exceptional situation, I think > > this is only the 2nd time we're using a formal TODO for a gpu driver. If > > we ignore gma500 in staging, which for me only showed that the separate > > staging tree doesn't work so well for complex drivers like we have. > > ... but I understand the motivation, so > > Acked-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > However... what about: > > 1. moving the smaller items to gitlab at least? > 2. having both, all the entries in the todo file have gitlab issue > associated and the number-id is also here in the todo file? Yeah that sounds reasonable. tbh we haven't started any of the intel-internal planning on most of these (ttm and scheduler are started), so none of these tracking things exist yet at all ... -Daniel > > > -Daniel > > > > > > > > BR, > > > Jani. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/TODO.txt | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/TODO.txt > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/TODO.txt b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/TODO.txt > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..d2e5bbb6339d > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/TODO.txt > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > > > > +gem/gt TODO items > > > > +----------------- > > > > + > > > > +- For discrete memory manager, merge enough dg1 to be able to refactor it to > > > > + TTM. Then land pci ids (just in case that turns up an uapi problem). TTM has > > > > + improved a lot the past 2 years, there's no reason anymore not to use it. > > > > + > > > > +- Come up with a plan what to do with drm/scheduler and how to get there. > > > > + > > > > +- There's a lot of complexity added past few years to make relocations faster. > > > > + That doesn't make sense given hw and gpu apis moved away from this model years > > > > + ago: > > > > + 1. Land a modern pre-bound uapi like VM_BIND > > > > + 2. Any complexity added in this area past few years which can't be justified > > > > + with VM_BIND using userspace should be removed. Looking at amdgpu dma_resv on > > > > + the bo and vm, plus some lru locks is all that needed. No complex rcu, > > > > + refcounts, caching, ... on everything. > > > > + This is the matching task on the vm side compared to ttm/dma_resv on the > > > > + backing storage side. > > > > + > > > > +- i915_sw_fence seems to be the main structure for the i915-gem dma_fence model. > > > > + How-to-dma_fence is core and drivers really shouldn't build their own world > > > > + here, treating everything else as a fixed platform. i915_sw_fence concepts > > > > + should be moved to dma_fence, drm/scheduler or atomic commit helpers. Or > > > > + removed if dri-devel consensus is that it's not a good idea. Once that's done > > > > + maybe even remove it if there's nothing left. > > > > + > > > > +Smaller things: > > > > +- i915_utils.h needs to be moved to the right places. > > > > + > > > > +- dma_fence_work should be in drivers/dma-buf > > > > + > > > > +- i915_mm.c should be moved to the right places. Some of the helpers also look a > > > > + bit fishy: > > > > + > > > > + https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20210301083320.943079-1-hch@xxxxxx/ > > > > > > -- > > > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center > > > > -- > > Daniel Vetter > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
