On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 09:27:25PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Ville Syrjala (2018-09-13 21:01:39)
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > With gtt remapping plugged in we can simply raise the stride
> > limit on gen4+. Let's just arbitraily pick 256 KiB as the limit.
> >
> > No remapping CCS because the virtual address of each page actually
> > matters due to the new hash mode
> > (WaCompressedResourceDisplayNewHashMode:skl,kbl etc.), and no remapping
> > on gen2/3 due to lack of fence on the remapped vma.
> >
> > v2: Rebase due to is_ccs_modifier()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > index 93b0de594c5d..346572cf734a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > @@ -2506,6 +2506,19 @@ static
> > u32 intel_fb_max_stride(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > u32 pixel_format, u64 modifier)
> > {
> > + /*
> > + * Arbitrary limit for gen4+. We can deal with any page
> > + * aligned stride via GTT remapping. Gen2/3 need a fence
> > + * for tiled scanout which the remapped vma won't have,
> > + * so we don't allow remapping on those platforms.
> > + *
> > + * Also the new hash mode we use for CCS isn't compatible
> > + * with remapping as the virtual address of the pages
> > + * affects the compressed data.
> > + */
> > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 4 && !is_ccs_modifier(modifier))
> > + return 256*1024;
>
> If arbitrary, why 256k? Will we not go beyond 8 bytes per pixel in the
> future?
I'm not aware of 32bpc formats being a thing for the display. 16bpc is
a thing for sure and that was on factor I used to pick the 256 KiB.
Another one was the max fence stride we support is 256KiB. While that's
not necessarily important these days I figured at least it's a limit
we already have elsewhere so should hopefully avoid some unknown
overflows :)
> If you used U32_MAX then we will just reject v.large strides on
> other grounds (too large for GTT, stride/size overflow).
>
> Hmm, or is the 256k to keep the overflow checks simpler?
I was trying to keep it reasonably low to avoid introducing more
overflow possibilities. But I think I will have to review more of
the existing code against those even with the 256KiB limit. Didn't
really think through the tile/aligned offset calculations yet to
see if they are in danger now.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
