On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 11:42:08AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/06/2022 07:53, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 10:08:35PM -0700, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 11:27:17AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 11:03, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 05:20, Niranjana Vishwanathapura
<niranjana.vishwanathapura@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 04:07:30PM -0700, Zanoni, Paulo R wrote:
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 11:32 -0700, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
VM_BIND and related uapi definitions
v2: Ensure proper kernel-doc formatting with cross references.
Also add new uapi and documentation as per review comments
from Daniel.
Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura
<niranjana.vishwanathapura@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h | 399
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 399 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..589c0a009107
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
@@ -0,0 +1,399 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
+/*
+ * Copyright © 2022 Intel Corporation
+ */
+
+/**
+ * DOC: I915_PARAM_HAS_VM_BIND
+ *
+ * VM_BIND feature availability.
+ * See typedef drm_i915_getparam_t param.
+ */
+#define I915_PARAM_HAS_VM_BIND 57
+
+/**
+ * DOC: I915_VM_CREATE_FLAGS_USE_VM_BIND
+ *
+ * Flag to opt-in for VM_BIND mode of binding during VM creation.
+ * See struct drm_i915_gem_vm_control flags.
+ *
+ * A VM in VM_BIND mode will not support the older
execbuff mode of binding.
+ * In VM_BIND mode, execbuff ioctl will not accept any
execlist (ie., the
+ * &drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2.buffer_count must be 0).
+ * Also, &drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2.batch_start_offset and
+ * &drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2.batch_len must be 0.
+ * DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_BATCH_ADDRESSES extension
must be provided
+ * to pass in the batch buffer addresses.
+ *
+ * Additionally, I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC, I915_EXEC_HANDLE_LUT and
+ * I915_EXEC_BATCH_FIRST of
&drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2.flags must be 0
+ * (not used) in VM_BIND mode. I915_EXEC_USE_EXTENSIONS
flag must always be
+ * set (See struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer_ext_batch_addresses).
+ * The buffers_ptr, buffer_count, batch_start_offset and
batch_len fields
+ * of struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 are also not used
and must be 0.
+ */
From that description, it seems we have:
struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 {
__u64 buffers_ptr; -> must be 0 (new)
__u32 buffer_count; -> must be 0 (new)
__u32 batch_start_offset; -> must be 0 (new)
__u32 batch_len; -> must be 0 (new)
__u32 DR1; -> must be 0 (old)
__u32 DR4; -> must be 0 (old)
__u32 num_cliprects; (fences) -> must be 0 since
using extensions
__u64 cliprects_ptr; (fences, extensions) ->
contains an actual pointer!
__u64 flags; -> some flags must be 0 (new)
__u64 rsvd1; (context info) -> repurposed field (old)
__u64 rsvd2; -> unused
};
Based on that, why can't we just get drm_i915_gem_execbuffer3 instead
of adding even more complexity to an already abused interface? While
the Vulkan-like extension thing is really nice, I don't think what
we're doing here is extending the ioctl usage, we're completely
changing how the base struct should be interpreted based on
how the VM
was created (which is an entirely different ioctl).
From Rusty Russel's API Design grading, drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 is
already at -6 without these changes. I think after vm_bind we'll need
to create a -11 entry just to deal with this ioctl.
The only change here is removing the execlist support for VM_BIND
mode (other than natual extensions).
Adding a new execbuffer3 was considered, but I think we need
to be careful
with that as that goes beyond the VM_BIND support, including
any future
requirements (as we don't want an execbuffer4 after VM_BIND).
Why not? it's not like adding extensions here is really that different
than adding new ioctls.
I definitely think this deserves an execbuffer3 without even
considering future requirements. Just to burn down the old
requirements and pointless fields.
Make execbuffer3 be vm bind only, no relocs, no legacy bits, leave the
older sw on execbuf2 for ever.
I guess another point in favour of execbuf3 would be that it's less
midlayer. If we share the entry point then there's quite a few vfuncs
needed to cleanly split out the vm_bind paths from the legacy
reloc/softping paths.
If we invert this and do execbuf3, then there's the existing ioctl
vfunc, and then we share code (where it even makes sense, probably
request setup/submit need to be shared, anything else is probably
cleaner to just copypaste) with the usual helper approach.
Also that would guarantee that really none of the old concepts like
i915_active on the vma or vma open counts and all that stuff leaks
into the new vm_bind execbuf.
Finally I also think that copypasting would make backporting easier,
or at least more flexible, since it should make it easier to have the
upstream vm_bind co-exist with all the other things we have. Without
huge amounts of conflicts (or at least much less) that pushing a pile
of vfuncs into the existing code would cause.
So maybe we should do this?
Thanks Dave, Daniel.
There are a few things that will be common between execbuf2 and
execbuf3, like request setup/submit (as you said), fence handling
(timeline fences, fence array, composite fences), engine
selection,
etc. Also, many of the 'flags' will be there in execbuf3 also (but
bit position will differ).
But I guess these should be fine as the suggestion here is to
copy-paste the execbuff code and having a shared code where possible.
Besides, we can stop supporting some older feature in execbuff3
(like fence array in favor of newer timeline fences), which will
further reduce common code.
Ok, I will update this series by adding execbuf3 and send out soon.
Does this sound reasonable?
struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer3 {
__u32 ctx_id; /* previously execbuffer2.rsvd1 */
__u32 batch_count;
__u64 batch_addr_ptr; /* Pointer to an array of batch gpu
virtual addresses */
Casual stumble upon..
Alternatively you could embed N pointers to make life a bit easier for
both userspace and kernel side. Yes, but then "N batch buffers should
be enough for everyone" problem.. :)
Thanks Tvrtko,
Yes, hence the batch_addr_ptr.
__u64 flags;
#define I915_EXEC3_RING_MASK (0x3f)
#define I915_EXEC3_DEFAULT (0<<0)
#define I915_EXEC3_RENDER (1<<0)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD (2<<0)
#define I915_EXEC3_BLT (3<<0)
#define I915_EXEC3_VEBOX (4<<0)
#define I915_EXEC3_SECURE (1<<6)
#define I915_EXEC3_IS_PINNED (1<<7)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD_SHIFT (8)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD_MASK (3 << I915_EXEC3_BSD_SHIFT)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD_DEFAULT (0 << I915_EXEC3_BSD_SHIFT)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD_RING1 (1 << I915_EXEC3_BSD_SHIFT)
#define I915_EXEC3_BSD_RING2 (2 << I915_EXEC3_BSD_SHIFT)
I'd suggest legacy engine selection is unwanted, especially not with
the convoluted BSD1/2 flags. Can we just require context with engine
map and index? Or if default context has to be supported then I'd
suggest ...class_instance for that mode.
Ok, I will be happy to remove it and only support contexts with
engine map, if UMDs agree on that.
#define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_IN (1<<10)
#define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_OUT (1<<11)
#define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_SUBMIT (1<<12)
People are likely to object to submit fence since generic mechanism to
align submissions was rejected.
Ok, again, I can remove it if UMDs are ok with it.
__u64 in_out_fence; /* previously execbuffer2.rsvd2 */
New ioctl you can afford dedicated fields.
Yes, but as I asked below, I am not sure if we need this or the
timeline fence arry extension we have is good enough.
In any case I suggest you involve UMD folks in designing it.
Yah.
Paulo, Lionel, Jason, Daniel, can you comment on these regarding
what will UMD need in execbuf3 and what can be removed?
Thanks,
Niranjana
Regards,
Tvrtko
__u64 extensions; /* currently only for
DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_TIMELINE_FENCES */
};
With this, user can pass in batch addresses and count directly,
instead of as an extension (as this rfc series was proposing).
I have removed many of the flags which were either legacy or not
applicable to BM_BIND mode.
I have also removed fence array support (execbuffer2.cliprects_ptr)
as we have timeline fence array support. Is that fine?
Do we still need FENCE_IN/FENCE_OUT/FENCE_SUBMIT support?
Any thing else needs to be added or removed?
Niranjana
Niranjana
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
