On 8 September 2017 at 14:47, Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> wrote: > Hello Folks, > > Sorry for late reply, I took quite some time to CTS up, comments below. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf >> Of Marathe, Yogesh >> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 10:16 AM >> To: Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> >> Cc: Gao, Shuo <shuo....@intel.com>; Liu, Zhiquan <zhiquan....@intel.com>; >> dani...@collabora.com; nicolai.haeh...@amd.com; Antognolli, Rafael >> <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>; e...@engestrom.ch; Emil Velikov >> <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>; Wu, Zhongmin <zhongmin...@intel.com>; >> kenn...@whitecape.org; Kondapally, Kalyan <kalyan.kondapa...@intel.com>; >> fernetme...@online.de; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; >> tarc...@itsqueeze.com; varad.gau...@collabora.com >> Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v6.2] egl: Allow creation of per surface out >> fence >> >> Tomasz, >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On >> > Behalf Of Tomasz Figa >> > Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 9:53 AM >> > To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Marathe, Yogesh >> > <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> wrote: >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On >> > >> Behalf Of Emil Velikov >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:44 PM >> > >> To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >> > >> Cc: Gao, Shuo <shuo....@intel.com>; Liu, Zhiquan >> > >> <zhiquan....@intel.com>; dani...@collabora.com; >> > >> nicolai.haeh...@amd.com; Antognolli, Rafael >> > >> <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>; e...@engestrom.ch; Wu, Zhongmin >> > >> <zhongmin...@intel.com>; tf...@chromium.org; >> kenn...@whitecape.org; >> > >> Kondapally, Kalyan <kalyan.kondapa...@intel.com>; >> > >> fernetme...@online.de; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; >> > >> tarc...@itsqueeze.com; varad.gau...@collabora.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v6.2] egl: Allow creation of per >> > >> surface out fence >> > >> >> > >> On 30 August 2017 at 15:39, Marathe, Yogesh >> > >> <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > Thank you, Tomasz and all involved for the help and guidance. >> > >> > >> > >> Our excitement was short lived - see commit >> > >> 8c9df0daf20206fafb7df77b1edcbc41b8e91372. >> > >> >> > >> Seems the patch was not run through the Intel CI, though I'm should >> > >> not have assumed that you're aware of if. >> > >> Please get in touch with Mark Janes (Cc'd here, janesma on IRC). He >> > >> can set you up and/or run a branch for you. >> > >> >> > > >> > > No problem. I will contact Mark. >> > > >> > > Primarily looks like platform / kernel version issue. >> > > intel_get_boolean() for I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE is false, but I >> > > see following in i915_drv.c:915_getparam in kernel, no clue why that >> > > would come false in UMD. >> > > >> > > ... >> > > case I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE: >> > > /* For the time being all of these are always true; >> > > * if some supported hardware does not have one of these >> > > * features this value needs to be provided from >> > > * INTEL_INFO(), a feature macro, or similar. >> > > */ >> > > value = 1; >> > > break; >> > > ... >> > >> > Which kernel are you looking at? Remember that not everyone uses >> > current upstream master. There is a number of upstream stable releases >> > and downstream forks. Grepping for I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE on >> > http://elixir.free-electrons.com, shows that it was only added in Linux >> > 4.12. >> > >> >> I'm on 4.9.x but I see my kernel tree has following patch, so this looks >> like it is >> done for android (cherry picked / backport). That’s why it worked for me >> always! >> >> commit f0683754f03fa308a2657cb1dadbf235c9607188 >> Author: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> Date: Fri Jan 27 09:40:08 2017 +0000 >> >> drm/i915: Support explicit fencing for execbuf >> >> Nonetheless, as you mentioned, I've synced up with Mark and we've created a >> separate branch where CTS / intel mesa CI can run. Let me try to fix this. >> >> Caveat: To have flatland running on android there was another issue in >> kernel >> which needed a fix. Details - >> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101656 > > I was able to run CTS (https://github.com/KhronosGroup/VK-GL-CTS) on this > patch > for x11_egl. I see exact same results before and after patch on Ubuntu 16.04 > setup. > Mark had also mentioned this works fine on 4.12 onwards (essentially with > drm/i915: > Support explicit fencing for execbuf patch in kernel). > > Regarding the primary reason why this was reverted > > mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_sync.c:491: brw_dri_create_fence_fd: > Assertion `brw->screen->has_exec_fence' failed. > > This assertion evident on older kernels. Although I'm bit surprised here > after looking at > the code. Older kernels where this explicit fencing is not supported must've > returned > 'false' for has_exec_fence in intelInitScreen2(). > > screen->has_exec_fence = > intel_get_boolean(screen, I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE); > > It appears that’s coming 'true' and due to that we set enable_out_fence in > dri2_init_surface() > (based on get_capabilities()) which causes create_fence_fd call on > non-supported kernels. > Isn't this strange? Can someone please comment? > In all fairness there was a few wtf moments as Mark mentioned the issue. As on a quick look "it cannot happen" :-\
One way is to add some printfs "debugging" across the board and check with Mark if he can run (only?) the affected test on the CI. Personally I would be quite generous with my printfs - from the ioctl call via the has_exec_fence handling to the __DRI_FENCE_CAP_NATIVE_FD check. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
