"Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel >> Vetter >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 4:28 PM >> To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: krh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>; >> mesa-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ben >> Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 07:24:29AM +0000, Song, Ruiling wrote: >> > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: hoegsberg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:hoegsberg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >> Of >> > > Kristian H?gsberg >> > > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM >> > > To: Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > Cc: Winiarski, Michal <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>; intel- >> > > gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mesa-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ben >> Widawsky >> > > <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >> > > >> > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Song, Ruiling <ruiling.song@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> -----Original Message----- >> > > >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >> > > Behalf >> > > >> Of Micha? Winiarski >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM >> > > >> To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; dri- >> > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> > > >> mesa-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > > >> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin >> > > >> >> > > >> Softpin allows userspace to take greater control of GPU virtual address >> > > >> space and eliminates the need of relocations. It can also be used to >> > > >> mirror addresses between GPU and CPU (shared virtual memory). >> > > >> Calls to drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc are still required to build the list of >> > > >> drm_i915_gem_exec_objects at exec time, but no entries in relocs are >> > > >> created. Self-relocs don't make any sense for softpinned objects and >> can >> > > >> indicate a programming errors, thus are forbidden. Softpinned objects >> > > >> are marked by asterisk in debug dumps. >> > > >> >> > > >> Cc: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <krh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <nanhai.zou@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> >> > > >> --- >> > > >> include/drm/i915_drm.h | 4 +- >> > > >> intel/intel_bufmgr.c | 9 +++ >> > > >> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 1 + >> > > >> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 176 >> > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> > > >> intel/intel_bufmgr_priv.h | 7 ++ >> > > >> 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > Will anybody help to push the patch to libdrm? Beignet highly depend >> on >> > > this to implement ocl2.0 svm. >> > > >> > > Is the kernel patch upstream? >> > >> > Yes, the kernel patch already merged, see: >> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm- >> intel/commit/?id=506a8e87d8d2746b9e9d2433503fe237c54e4750 >> > >> > I find below line of code in libdrm does not match the kernel version. The >> kernel patch defined as: >> > "#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)", but this patch defined it as (1<<3). >> >> Please always regenerate the entire headers from the kernel sources using >> >> $ make headers_install >> >> Then copy the headers from the kernel's usr/include/drm to libdrm. Never >> patch i915_drm.h manually. > > Thanks for the info. But the problem is libdrm still tracks such kind of header files. > Should this kind of header file be removed from libdrm? Or any document in libdrm to make this explicit? The motivation is that compiling libdrm should be independent of kernel headers on the system. You could probably get away with requiring some recent enough linux-headers pkg or something, but in the end this seemed more pragmatic. Kristian > Thanks! > Ruiling > >> Thanks, Daniel >> >> > >> > Hello Michal, >> > >> > Could you help to rebase the patch against: >> > [Intel-gfx] [PATCH libdrm v4 0/2] 48-bit virtual address support in i915 >> > I think we need both 48bit & softpin in libdrm. >> > >> > diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> > index ded43b1..2b99fc6 100644 >> > --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> > +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h >> > @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait { >> > #define I915_PARAM_REVISION 32 >> > #define I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_TOTAL 33 >> > #define I915_PARAM_EU_TOTAL 34 >> > +#define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SOFTPIN 37 >> > >> > typedef struct drm_i915_getparam { >> > int param; >> > @@ -680,7 +681,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 { >> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE (1<<0) >> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT (1<<1) >> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2) >> > -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE<<1) >> > +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<3) >> > +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1) >> > __u64 flags; >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Intel-gfx mailing list >> > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx >> >> -- >> Daniel Vetter >> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation >> http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
