On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:58:43PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 15:34, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:30:45AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > +No major changes are required to the uAPI for basic GuC submission. The only > > > +change is a new scheduler attribute: I915_SCHEDULER_CAP_STATIC_PRIORITY_MAP. > > > +This attribute indicates the 2k i915 user priority levels are statically mapped > > > +into 3 levels as follows: > > > + > > > +* -1k to -1 Low priority > > > +* 0 Medium priority > > > +* 1 to 1k High priority > > > + > > > +This is needed because the GuC only has 4 priority bands. The highest priority > > > +band is reserved with the kernel. This aligns with the DRM scheduler priority > > > +levels too. > > > > Please Cc: mesa and get an ack from Jason Ekstrand or Ken Graunke on this, > > just to be sure. > > A reference to the actual specs this targets would help. I don't have > oneAPI to hand if it's relevant, but the two in graphics world are > https://www.khronos.org/registry/EGL/extensions/IMG/EGL_IMG_context_priority.txt > and https://www.khronos.org/registry/vulkan/specs/1.2-extensions/html/chap5.html#devsandqueues-priority > - both of them pretty much say that the implementation may do anything > or nothing at all, so this isn't a problem for spec conformance, only > a matter of user priority (sorry). Good point, Matt please also include the level0 spec here (aside from egl/vk extensions). Might need to ping Michal Mrozek internally and cc: him on this one here too. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
