Kristian Høgsberg <[email protected]> writes:
> "Song, Ruiling" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> -----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).
>
> I have the two 48 bit patches merge here. I'll pull in Michał's patch,
> update the kernel header and then push it all.
All pushed now.
Kristian
>> 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
