On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 05:27:38PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote: > On 8/6/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:14:33PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote: > >>On 8/5/2015 4:58 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:24:01PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote: > >>>>There are some allocations that must be only referenced by 32-bit > >>>>offsets. To limit the chances of having the first 4GB already full, > >>>>objects not requiring this workaround use DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW/ > >>>>DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags > >>>> > >>>>In specific, any resource used with flat/heapless (0x00000000-0xfffff000) > >>>>General State Heap (GSH) or Instruction State Heap (ISH) must be in a > >>>>32-bit range, because the General State Offset and Instruction State > >>>>Offset are limited to 32-bits. > >>>> > >>>>Objects must have EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag to indicate if > >>>>they can be allocated above the 32-bit address range. To limit the > >>>>chances of having the first 4GB already full, objects will use > >>>>DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW + DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags when possible. > >>>> > >>>>v2: Changed flag logic from neeeds_32b, to supports_48b. > >>>>v3: Moved 48-bit support flag back to exec_object. (Chris, Daniel) > >>>>v4: Split pin flags into PIN_ZONE_4G and PIN_HIGH; update PIN_OFFSET_MASK > >>>>to use last PIN_ defined instead of hard-coded value; use correct limit > >>>>check in eb_vma_misplaced. (Chris) > >>>>v5: Don't touch PIN_OFFSET_MASK and update workaround comment (Chris) > >>>>v6: Apply pin-high for ggtt too (Chris) > >>>>v7: Handle simultaneous pin-high and pin-mappable end correctly (Akash) > >>>> Fix check for entries currently using +4GB addresses, use min_t and > >>>> other polish in object_bind_to_vm (Chris) > >>>> > >>>>Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>Cc: Akash Goel <akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (v4) > >>>>Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>>For the record, where can I find the mesa patches for this? I think for > >>>simple things like this a References: line point to the relevant UMD > >>>patches in mailing-list archives would be great. > >>>-Daniel > >>> > >> > >>Here they are, > >> > >>References: > >>http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-July/085501.html and > >>http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-July/088003.html > > > >Sounds like there's still another revision we need to do on those? > > Yes, a couple of changes, set/clear functions internal in libdrm and update > the symbol-check test. > > I put it on hold, because I was also asked to not include the libdrm changes > until the updated kernel header (EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag) was > merged. > > Then I also need to create a libdrm release, and update mesa's dependency to > this new version number. Nope, we need everything before I can pull in the kernel patch. Once that happens then you can do the release/depency dance (of course don't include those bits in your proposed patches yet). -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
