On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:58:24AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 07:36:50PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> >> > @@ -63,7 +65,7 @@ static void exec(int fd, uint32_t handle, uint32_t offset) > > >> >> > gem_exec[0].relocs_ptr = (uintptr_t) gem_reloc; > > >> >> > gem_exec[0].alignment = 0; > > >> >> > gem_exec[0].offset = 0; > > >> >> > - gem_exec[0].flags = 0; > > >> >> > + gem_exec[0].flags = LOCAL__EXEC_OBJ_NEEDS_GTT; > > >> >> > > >> >> This only really works with the aliasing ppgtt stuff on gen6, I'd just > > >> >> skip the test -it's not really useful with real ppgtt. > > >> >> -Daniel > > >> > > > >> > It is really useful with real ppgtt. Please rethink your assertion. > > >> > > >> The test links up the global gtt used by the current pin ioctl with > > >> the ppgtt. That's not useful, except when they alias. If we want > > >> soft-pinning, then we need a new ioctl mode to return the right > > >> address from the right address space. Which means a new (sub)test. > > >> -Daniel > > > > > > This is only indirectly related to soft pinning. No context will ever have the > > > global GTT address space. If you want to support the pin IOCTL, (which > > > Chris has before said he requires - the original patch series disabled > > > it) you must do this. We already have a flag that does what we want, > > > and, demonstrably, a test which exercises it. > > > > > > I do not think a new ioctl, nor a new subtest is the solution for this. > > > > Ok, I'll wait until I see the code that implements this on top of > > ppgtt. But until we have that I don't think we need to change the test > > at all. > > -Daniel > > This is a question for Chris. If DDX only depends on the behavior with > aliasing PPGTT, then I agree - no test change needed. Where pin has come in handy has been to w/a hw bugs, so predicting when and why we might need it again is difficult. As such I'd rather we maintained its existing semantics of pinning an object in the ggtt into the full-ppgtt future. As such it is should be trivial to implement the ioctl with very little impact. -chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
