> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Kristian H?gsberg > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:34 PM > To: Song, Ruiling <[email protected]> > Cc: Winiarski, Michal <[email protected]>; intel- > [email protected]; [email protected]; Ben Widawsky > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Song, Ruiling <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Intel-gfx [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > >> Of Micha? Winiarski > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:07 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]>; dri- > [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RFC libdrm] intel: Add support for softpin > >> > >> Softpin allows userspace to take greater control of GPU virtual address > >> space and eliminates the need of relocations. It can also be used to > >> mirror addresses between GPU and CPU (shared virtual memory). > >> Calls to drm_intel_bo_emit_reloc are still required to build the list of > >> drm_i915_gem_exec_objects at exec time, but no entries in relocs are > >> created. Self-relocs don't make any sense for softpinned objects and can > >> indicate a programming errors, thus are forbidden. Softpinned objects > >> are marked by asterisk in debug dumps. > >> > >> Cc: Thomas Daniel <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Kristian Høgsberg <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Zou Nanhai <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Michel Thierry <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> include/drm/i915_drm.h | 4 +- > >> intel/intel_bufmgr.c | 9 +++ > >> intel/intel_bufmgr.h | 1 + > >> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 176 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >> intel/intel_bufmgr_priv.h | 7 ++ > >> 5 files changed, 173 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) > > > > Will anybody help to push the patch to libdrm? Beignet highly depend on > this to implement ocl2.0 svm. > > Is the kernel patch upstream?
Yes, the kernel patch already merged, see: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-intel/commit/?id=506a8e87d8d2746b9e9d2433503fe237c54e4750 I find below line of code in libdrm does not match the kernel version. The kernel patch defined as: "#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)", but this patch defined it as (1<<3). Hello Michal, Could you help to rebase the patch against: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH libdrm v4 0/2] 48-bit virtual address support in i915 I think we need both 48bit & softpin in libdrm. diff --git a/include/drm/i915_drm.h b/include/drm/i915_drm.h index ded43b1..2b99fc6 100644 --- a/include/drm/i915_drm.h +++ b/include/drm/i915_drm.h @@ -350,6 +350,7 @@ typedef struct drm_i915_irq_wait { #define I915_PARAM_REVISION 32 #define I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_TOTAL 33 #define I915_PARAM_EU_TOTAL 34 +#define I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SOFTPIN 37 typedef struct drm_i915_getparam { int param; @@ -680,7 +681,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 { #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_FENCE (1<<0) #define EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT (1<<1) #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2) -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE<<1) +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<3) +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1) __u64 flags; _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
