On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 03:30:56PM +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote: > On 02/06/2015 19:47, Dave Gordon wrote: > >On 02/06/15 19:36, Siluvery, Arun wrote: > >>On 01/06/2015 11:22, Daniel, Thomas wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Indeed, allocating an extra scratch page in the context would simplify > >>>>vma/mm management. A trick might be to allocate the scratch page at the > >>>>start, then offset the lrc regs etc - that would then be consistent > >>>>amongst gen and be easy enough to extend if we need more per-context > >>>>scratch space in future. > >>>>-Chris > >>> > >>>Yes, I think we already have another use for more per-context space at > >>>the start. The GuC is planning to do this. Arun, you probably should > >>>work with Alex Dai and Dave Gordon to avoid conflicts here. > >>> > >>>Thomas. > >>> > >> > >>Thanks for the heads-up Thomas. > >>I have discussed with Dave and agreed to share this page; > >>GuC probably doesn't need whole page so first half is reserved for it's > >>use and second half is used for WA. > >> > >>I have modified my patches to use context page for applying these WA and > >>don't see any issues. > >> > >>During the discussions Dave proposed another approach. Even though these > >>WA are called per context they are only initialized once and not changed > >>afterwards, same set of WA are applied for each context so instead of > >>adding them in each context, does it make sense to create a separate > >>page and share across all contexts? but of course GuC will anyway add a > >>new page to context so I might as well share that page. > >> > >>Chris/Dave, do you see any problems with sharing page with GuC or you > >>prefer to allocate a separate page for these WA and share across all > >>contexts? Please give your comments. > >> > >>regards > >>Arun > > > >I think we have to consider which is more future-proof i.e. which is > >least likely: > >(1) the area shared with the GuC grows (definitely still in flux), or > >(2) workarounds need to be context-specific (possible, but unlikely) > > > >So I'd prefer a single area set up just once to contain the pre- and > >post-context restore workaround batches. If necessary, the one area > >could contain multiple batches at different offsets, so we could point > >different contexts at different (shared) batches as required. I think > >they're unlikely to actually need per-context customisation[*], but > >there might be a need for different workarounds according to workload > >type or privilege level or some other criterion ... ? > > > >.Dave. > > > >[*] unless they need per-context memory addresses coded into them? > > > > Considering these WA are initialized only once and not changed afterwards > and GuC area probably grows in future which may run into the space used by > WA, independent single area setup makes senses. > I also checked spec and it is not clear whether any customization is going > to be required for different contexts. > I have modified patches to setup a single page with WA when default_context > is initialized and this is used by all contexts. > > I will send patches but please let me know if there are any other comments. Yeah if the wa batches aren't ctx specific, then there's really no need to allocate one of them per ctx. One global buffer with all the wa combined should really be all we need. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
