"Song, Ruiling" <ruiling.song@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> -----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). I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Michał's patch, update the kernel header and then push it all. Kristian > 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; > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
