Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-12-13 08:17:17) > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 02:33:38PM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > On 12/12/17 11:19, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > On 11/12/2017 21:05, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:38:53PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > On 11/12/2017 10:50, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > > > + Daniel, Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 09:21 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > > On 04/12/2017 15:02, Lionel Landwerlin wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After discussion with Chris, Joonas & Tvrtko, this series adds an > > > > > > > > additional commit to link the render node back to the card through a > > > > > > > > symlink. Making it obvious from an application using > > > > > > > > a render node to > > > > > > > > know where to get the information it needs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Important thing to mention as well is that it is trivial > > > > > > > to get from the > > > > > > > master drm fd to the sysfs root, via fstat and opendir > > > > > > > /sys/dev/char/<major>:<minor>. With the addition of the > > > > > > > card symlink to > > > > > > > render nodes it is trivial for render node fd as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy with this approach - it is extensible, flexible and avoids > > > > > > > issues with ioctl versioning or whatnot. With one value > > > > > > > per file it is > > > > > > > trivial for userspace to access. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So for what I'm concerned, given how gputop would use > > > > > > > all of this and so > > > > > > > be the userspace, if everyone else is happy, I think we could do a > > > > > > > detailed review and prehaps also think about including gputop in some > > > > > > > distribution to make the case 100% straightforward. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the GPU topology I agree this is the right choice, it's > > > > > > going to be > > > > > > about topology after all, and directory tree is the perfect candidate. > > > > > > And if a new platform appears, then it's a new platform and may change > > > > > > the topology well the hardware topology has changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the engine enumeration, I'm not equally sold for sysfs > > > > > > exposing it. > > > > > > It's a "linear list of engine instances with flags" how the userspace > > > > > > is going to be looking at them. And it's also information > > > > > > about what to > > > > > > pass to an IOCTL as arguments after decision has been made, and then > > > > > > you already have the FD you know you'll be dealing with, at hand. So > > > > > > another IOCTL for that seems more convenient. > > > > > > > > > > Apart from more flexibility and easier to extend, sysfs might be > > > > > a better > > > > > fit for applications which do not otherwise need a drm fd. Say a > > > > > top-like > > > > > tool which shows engine utilization, or those patches I RFC-ed recently > > > > > which do the same but per DRM client. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, these stats are now available also via PMU so the argument > > > > > is not the > > > > > strongest I admit, but I still find it quite neat. It also might > > > > > allow us to > > > > > define our own policy with regards to needed privilege to access these > > > > > stats, and not be governed by the perf API rules. > > > > > > > > How exactly is sysfs easier to extend than ioctl? There's lots of > > > > > > Easier as in no need to version, add has_this/has_that markers, try to > > > guess today how big a field for something might be needed in the future > > > and similar. > > > > > > > serializing and deserializing going on, ime that's more boilerplate. Imo > > > > the only reason for sysfs is when you _must_ access it without having an > > > > fd to the gpu. The inverse is generally not true (i.e. using sysfs when > > > > you have the fd already), and as soon as you add a writeable field here > > > > you're screwed (because sysfs can't be passed to anyone else but root, > > > > compared to drm fd - viz the backlight fiasco). > > > > > > I would perhaps expand the "must access without having a drm fd" to > > > "more convenient to access without a drm fd". My use case here was the > > > per-client engine usage stats. Equivalence with /proc/<pid>/stat, or > > > even /proc/stat if you want. So I was interested in creating a foothold > > > in sysfs for that purpose. > > > > > > No writable fields were imagined in all these two to three use cases. > > > > > > > But even without writeable fields: Think of highly contained > > > > containers/clients which only get the drm fd to render. If sysfs is > > > > gone, > > > > will they fall on their faces? Atm "drm fd is all you need" is very > > > > deeply > > > > ingrained into our various OS stacks. > > > > > > Okay, this is something which was mentioned but I think the answer was > > > unclear. If current stacks do work without sysfs then this is a good > > > argument to keep that ability. > > > > > > As I said I am OK to drop the engine info bits from this series. > > > Question for Lionel, gpu-top and Mesa then is whether sysfs works for > > > them, for the remaining topology information. Attractiveness of sysfs > > > there was that it looked easier to be future proof for more or less > > > hypothetical future topologies. > > > > We did a couple of versions with ioctls : > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/185959/ (through GET_PARAM) > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/33436/ (though a new discovery uAPI > > initially targeted at the engine discovery) > > > > Eventually Chris suggested sysfs (which I find kind of convenient), even > > though you Daniel raised a valid point with sandboxed processes. > > > > I personally don't care much in which way this should be implemented. > > Just give me some direction :) > > > > Daniel: Would something in the style of > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/33436/ work? If yes, what would you > > recommend to change? > > tbh I feel bad derailing this even further, but I think if you want a more > flexible query ioctl that's easier to extend we could maybe look at the > chunk list approach amdgpu_cs_ioctl uses: All the massive pile of execbuf > metadata is supplied in a chunk list, and if you want to extend new stuff, > or add a new type, you add a new chunk_id. The chunks themselves are all > linearized into one allocation. > > We could use the exact same trick for output, and require that userspace > simply jumps over chunks it doesn't understand. Pronto, you have your > insta-extensibility. That maps to my suggestion to use json (or one of the other compact readable formats) as the interchange. (Presumably with a (seq)file approach, so you pass in the read offset to avoid having to allocate everything up front.) A useful suggestion is that the same output is provided via debugfs for dev convenience, and including in the error state. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
