On 08/06/2022 09:40, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
On 03/06/2022 09:53, 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 futurerequirements (as we don't want an execbuffer4 after VM_BIND).Why not? it's not like adding extensions here is really that differentthan 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 theolder 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 andexecbuf3, 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?Thanks for proposing this. Some comments below.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 */__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)Shouldn't we use the new engine selection uAPI instead?We can already create an engine map with I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES in drm_i915_gem_context_create_ext_setparam.And you can also create virtual engines with the same extension.It feels like this could be a single u32 with the engine index (in the context engine map).#define I915_EXEC3_SECURE (1<<6) #define I915_EXEC3_IS_PINNED (1<<7)What's the meaning of PINNED?#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) #define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_IN (1<<10) #define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_OUT (1<<11)For Mesa, as soon as we have DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_TIMELINE_FENCES support, we only use that.So there isn't much point for FENCE_IN/OUT. Maybe check with other UMDs?
Correcting myself a bit here : - iris uses I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY- anv uses I915_EXEC_FENCE_ARRAY or DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_TIMELINE_FENCES
In either case we could easily switch to DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_TIMELINE_FENCES all the time.
#define I915_EXEC3_FENCE_SUBMIT (1<<12)What's FENCE_SUBMIT?__u64 in_out_fence; /* previously execbuffer2.rsvd2 */__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? NiranjanaNiranjana-Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
