On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsb...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:00 PM Alex Deucher <alexdeuc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:14 AM, Chad Versace <chadvers...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >>> > On Thu 21 Dec 2017, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> >> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Kristian Kristensen < >> hoegsb...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Miguel Angel Vico < >> mvicom...@nvidia.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:54:10 -0800 Kristian Høgsberg < >> hoegsb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> I'd like to see concrete examples of actual display controllers >>> >>>>> supporting more format layouts than what can be specified with a 64 >>> >>>>> bit modifier. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The main problem is our tiling and other metadata parameters can't >>> >>>> generally fit in a modifier, so we find passing a blob of metadata a >>> >>>> more suitable mechanism. >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand that you may have n knobs with a total of more than a >> total of >>> >>> 56 bits that configure your tiling/swizzling for color buffers. What >> I don't >>> >>> buy is that you need all those combinations when passing buffers >> around >>> >>> between codecs, cameras and display controllers. Even if you're >> sharing >>> >>> between the same 3D drivers in different processes, I expect just >> locking >>> >>> down, say, 64 different combinations (you can add more over time) and >>> >>> assigning each a modifier would be sufficient. I doubt you'd extract >>> >>> meaningful performance gains from going all the way to a blob. >>> > >>> > I agree with Kristian above. In my opinion, choosing to encode in >>> > modifiers a precise description of every possible tiling/compression >>> > layout is not technically incorrect, but I believe it misses the point. >>> > The intention behind modifiers is not to exhaustively describe all >>> > possibilites. >>> > >>> > I summarized this opinion in VK_EXT_image_drm_format_modifier, >>> > where I wrote an "introdution to modifiers" section. Here's an excerpt: >>> > >>> > One goal of modifiers in the Linux ecosystem is to enumerate for >> each >>> > vendor a reasonably sized set of tiling formats that are >> appropriate for >>> > images shared across processes, APIs, and/or devices, where each >>> > participating component may possibly be from different vendors. >>> > A non-goal is to enumerate all tiling formats supported by all >> vendors. >>> > Some tiling formats used internally by vendors are inappropriate for >>> > sharing; no modifiers should be assigned to such tiling formats. >> >>> Where it gets tricky is how to select that subset? Our tiling mode >>> are defined more by the asic specific constraints than the tiling mode >>> itself. At a high level we have basically 3 tiling modes (out of 16 >>> possible) that would be the minimum we'd want to expose for gfx6-8. >>> gfx9 uses a completely new scheme. >>> 1. Linear (per asic stride requirements, not usable by many hw blocks) >>> 2. 1D Thin (5 layouts, displayable, depth, thin, rotated, thick) >>> 3. 2D Thin (1D tiling constraints, plus pipe config (18 possible), >>> tile split (7 possible), sample split (4 possible), num banks (4 >>> possible), bank width (4 possible), bank height (4 possible), macro >>> tile aspect (4 possible) all of which are asic config specific) >> >>> I guess we could do something like: >>> AMD_GFX6_LINEAR_ALIGNED_64B >>> AMD_GFX6_LINEAR_ALIGNED_256B >>> AMD_GFX6_LINEAR_ALIGNED_512B >>> AMD_GFX6_1D_THIN_DISPLAY >>> AMD_GFX6_1D_THIN_DEPTH >>> AMD_GFX6_1D_THIN_ROTATED >>> AMD_GFX6_1D_THIN_THIN >>> AMD_GFX6_1D_THIN_THICK >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_DISPLAY_PIPE_CONFIG_P2_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_DEPTH_PIPE_CONFIG_P2_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_ROTATED_PIPE_CONFIG_P2_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_THIN_PIPE_CONFIG_P2_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_THICK_PIPE_CONFIG_P2_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_DISPLAY_PIPE_CONFIG_P4_8x16_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_DEPTH_PIPE_CONFIG_P4_8x16_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_ROTATED_PIPE_CONFIG_P4_8x16_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_THIN_PIPE_CONFIG_P4_8x16_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >> >> AMD_GFX6_2D_1D_THIN_THICK_PIPE_CONFIG_P4_8x16_TILE_SPLIT_64B_SAMPLE_SPLIT_1_NUM_BANKS_2_BANK_WIDTH_1_BANK_HEIGHT_1_MACRO_TILE_ASPECT_1 >>> etc. >> >>> We only probably need 40 bits to encode all of the tiling parameters >>> so we could do family, plus tiling encoding that still seems unwieldy >>> to deal with from an application perspective. All of the parameters >>> affect the alignment requirements. >> >> We discussed this earlier in the thread, here's what I said: >> >> Another point here is that the modifier doesn't need to encode all the >> thing you have to communicate to the HW. For a given width, height, format, >> compression type and maybe a few other high-level parameters, I'm skeptical >> that the remaining tile parameters aren't just mechanically derivable using >> a fixed table or formula. So instead of thinking of the modifiers as >> something you can just memcpy into a state packet, it identifies a family >> of configurations - enough information to deterministically derive the full >> exact configuration. The formula may change, for example for different >> hardware or if it's determined to not be optimal, and in that case, we can >> use a new modifier to represent to new formula. > > I think this is not so much about being able to dump it in a state > packet, but about sharing between different GPUs of AMD. We have > basically only a few interesting tiling modes if you look at a single > GPU, but checking if those are equal depends on the other bits which > may or may not be different per chip for the same conceptual tiling > mode. We could just put a chip identifier in, but that would preclude > any sharing while I think we can do some.
Right. And the 2D ones, while they are the most complicated, are also the most interesting from a performance perspective so ideally you'd find a match on one of those. If you don't expose the 2D modes, there's not much point in supporting modifiers at all. Alex _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev