Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-03-19 18:39:52) > Hi all, > > There are couple of extensions coming up for our userspace drivers (anv/i965) > where we need to add additional parameters to execbuf : > > - VK_KHR_timeline_semaphore : supplying u64 points together with syncobjs > [1] > - a non public piece of work related to performance counters [2] : > supplying a performance configuration ID to reconfigure the performance HW > > > Recently some discussions on IRC also highlighted the need for better reporting > of execbuf failure. > We have a number of bugs where execbuf fails after a number of hours running an > application or some random conditions and it's almost impossible to figure out > where the problem lies. > Having a way for i915 to report what validation the input parameters actually > fail would more helpful than EINVAL. > > Some of the virtual engine stuff could also fit in there but maybe the timeline > is too tight for that. > > We've added a i915_query mechanism that is easily extendable and after exposing > topology, it seems to be useful for adding other types of queries (engine > discovery, memory regions and the series in [2] also exposes performance query > configuration data). > > I would really like to see a similar mechanism for an execbuf3. > How can we help getting started in that direction? The direction has certainly been considered for a while already, it's mostly a matter of gathering all the requirements to avoid execbuf4 next year :) So if you have any other potential requirements, now is a good time to mention them. Regards, Joonas > Do people have a better idea? > > Thanks, > > -Lionel > > [1] : https://github.com/djdeath/linux/commit/ > 8f26fca6dc41d98cb01c5758be01e382a72c84aa > [2] : https://github.com/djdeath/linux/commit/ > 58be37aae22f7b9b31792aa13415cb5809087c10 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
