Hi everyone, Yes, this breaks userspace ABI and in particular it broke VTune work. Ring ids are seen via i915 tracepoints, and VTune Amplifier uses them. We were relying on the old ring ids, and assuming that the new rings would be added to the end of the enum. I'm objecting just now because now this driver change reached our internal users and they complained that VTune is reporting DMA packets on wrong engines. I would request this change (the enum intel_ring_id change) to be rolled back. Hope, it's still possible. Regards, Svetlana -----Original Message----- From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:09 AM To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>; Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Decouple execbuf uAPI from internal implementation On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:02:59PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > At the moment execbuf ring selection is fully coupled to internal ring > ids which is not a good thing on its own. > > This dependency is also spread between two source files and not > spelled out at either side which makes it hidden and fragile. > > This patch decouples this dependency by introducing an explicit > translation table of execbuf uAPI to ring id close to the only call > site (i915_gem_do_execbuffer). > > This way we are free to change driver internal implementation details > without breaking userspace. All state relating to the uAPI is now > contained in, or next to, i915_gem_do_execbuffer. I was hesistant at first, since "why?" isn't fully developed, but the code won me over. > +#define I915_USER_RINGS (4) > + > +static const enum intel_ring_id user_ring_map[I915_USER_RINGS + 1] = { > + [I915_EXEC_DEFAULT] = RCS, > + [I915_EXEC_RENDER] = RCS, > + [I915_EXEC_BLT] = BCS, > + [I915_EXEC_BSD] = VCS, > + [I915_EXEC_VEBOX] = VECS > +}; I was wondering whether packing here mattered at all, but we're under a cacheline so highly unlikely. > static int > i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > struct drm_file *file, > @@ -1393,6 +1393,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > struct i915_execbuffer_params params_master; /* XXX: will be removed later */ > struct i915_execbuffer_params *params = ¶ms_master; > const u32 ctx_id = i915_execbuffer2_get_context_id(*args); > + unsigned int user_ring_id = args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK; > u32 dispatch_flags; > int ret; > bool need_relocs; > @@ -1414,49 +1415,39 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > if (args->flags & I915_EXEC_IS_PINNED) > dispatch_flags |= I915_DISPATCH_PINNED; > > - if ((args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK) > LAST_USER_RING) { > - DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown ring: %d\n", > - (int)(args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK)); > + if (user_ring_id > I915_USER_RINGS) { > + DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown ring: %u\n", user_ring_id); > return -EINVAL; > } > > - if (((args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK) != I915_EXEC_BSD) && > + if ((user_ring_id != I915_EXEC_BSD) && > ((args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK) != 0)) { > DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with non bsd ring but with invalid " > "bsd dispatch flags: %d\n", (int)(args->flags)); > return -EINVAL; > - } > - > - if ((args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK) == I915_EXEC_DEFAULT) > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[RCS]; > - else if ((args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK) == I915_EXEC_BSD) { > - if (HAS_BSD2(dev)) { > - int ring_id; > - > - switch (args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK) { > - case I915_EXEC_BSD_DEFAULT: > - ring_id = gen8_dispatch_bsd_ring(dev, file); > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[ring_id]; > - break; > - case I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1: > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[VCS]; > - break; > - case I915_EXEC_BSD_RING2: > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[VCS2]; > - break; > - default: > - DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown bsd ring: %d\n", > - (int)(args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK)); > - return -EINVAL; > - } > - } else > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[VCS]; > - } else > - ring = &dev_priv->ring[(args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK) - 1]; > + } > + > + if (user_ring_id == I915_EXEC_BSD && HAS_BSD2(dev)) { HAS_BSD2(dev_priv) > + unsigned int bsd_idx = args->flags & I915_EXEC_BSD_MASK; > + > + if (bsd_idx == I915_EXEC_BSD_DEFAULT) { > + bsd_idx = gen8_dispatch_bsd_ring(dev_priv, file); > + } else if (bsd_idx >= I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1 && > + bsd_idx <= I915_EXEC_BSD_RING2) { > + bsd_idx--; > + } else { > + DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with unknown bsd ring: %u\n", > + bsd_idx); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + > + ring = &dev_priv->ring[_VCS(bsd_idx)]; > + } else { > + ring = &dev_priv->ring[user_ring_map[user_ring_id]]; > + } > > if (!intel_ring_initialized(ring)) { > - DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with invalid ring: %d\n", > - (int)(args->flags & I915_EXEC_RING_MASK)); > + DRM_DEBUG("execbuf with invalid ring: %u\n", user_ring_id); > return -EINVAL; > } One question, how does this look if we move this section to its own function: ring = eb_select_ring(dev_priv, file, args); if (IS_ERR(ring)) return PTR_ERR(ring); Do you keep your code size reduction? > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h > index 7349d9258191..fdc220fc2b18 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h > @@ -148,14 +148,14 @@ struct i915_ctx_workarounds { struct > intel_engine_cs { > const char *name; > enum intel_ring_id { > - RCS = 0x0, > - VCS, > + RCS = 0, > BCS, > - VECS, > - VCS2 > + VCS, > + VCS2, /* Keep instances of the same type engine together. */ > + VECS Technically, this breaks userspace ABI elsewhere. :| Though the only user of the id mask is only looking for RCS==0 vs the reset. So I think we would cope, but to be extra safe we could just avoid reshuffling the ids. Let me sleep on the implications. We may say just break that ABI whilst we still can and do a reverse-map to EXEC bit. Hmm. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -------------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Stock Company Intel A/O Registered legal address: Krylatsky Hills Business Park, 17 Krylatskaya Str., Bldg 4, Moscow 121614, Russian Federation This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
