Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:46:37PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:15:36AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar. > > I'm not sure that this will still impact us once we implement the batch copy > step. I was only using the secure dispatch stuff because it was a convenient > way to get the batch into GGTT. But with the copy step, we could just have > separate code to do that. The problem isn't copying or allocating the bo, the issue is running it with a) the hw checker disabled b) not mapped into any ppgtt so hidden from all (unchecked) access and c) otherwise working like a normal batch. For that we need to employ the secure batch dispatch code in the execbuf code. Atm b) is broken for aliasing ppgtt and c) is broken for full ppgtt. So a bit of blockers for us. But at least broken b) with aliasing ppgtt is kinda a regression, which means I'll get around to it soonish (before 3.15-rc1 at least). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:15:36AM -0700, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:43:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > Hi Bradley - > > > > Apologies for my procrastination with the review; I don't easily recall > > as tedious a review as the command and register tables. And I sure have > > reviewed a lot of miserable stuff in the past. > > > > Most infuriatingly, I did not find a single real bug in the code! > > > > I think we'll need to automate some things going forward, for example > > listing the non-conforming length encoding with Damien's tools for cross > > checking. > > > > There are a few subtle points we need to discuss (separate mails > > internally) but all in all this series is: > > > > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula > > Ok, pulled this one in, thanks a lot for the patches&review. I think it's > time we start to move on with the next bits, the batch copy stuff seams > like a suitable piece. There's still issues with launching the entire > thing in the end, but we can start with the copy infrastructure. > > Open issues I see still: > > - The littel issue we're discussing internally. Like I've said that one is > blocking us and needs to be resolved before we can switch to enforcing > mode. > > - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar. I'm not sure that this will still impact us once we implement the batch copy step. I was only using the secure dispatch stuff because it was a convenient way to get the batch into GGTT. But with the copy step, we could just have separate code to do that. > > - CodingStyle says: Functions should be a) at most 3 indent levels b) at > most 3 ansi screens long (i.e. 75 lines). i915_parse_cmds violates both > metrics pretty deftly. I think a few refactoring patches to extract > helper functions and structure the flow a bit would be good. :) I'll start with a patch to move all of the actual checking logic into a separate function, with maybe an extra helper for the bitmask checks. That seems like it should cut the size down sufficiently. Brad > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:43:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> Hi Bradley - >> >> Apologies for my procrastination with the review; I don't easily recall >> as tedious a review as the command and register tables. And I sure have >> reviewed a lot of miserable stuff in the past. >> >> Most infuriatingly, I did not find a single real bug in the code! >> >> I think we'll need to automate some things going forward, for example >> listing the non-conforming length encoding with Damien's tools for cross >> checking. >> >> There are a few subtle points we need to discuss (separate mails >> internally) but all in all this series is: >> >> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula > > Ok, pulled this one in, thanks a lot for the patches&review. I think it's > time we start to move on with the next bits, the batch copy stuff seams > like a suitable piece. There's still issues with launching the entire > thing in the end, but we can start with the copy infrastructure. > > Open issues I see still: > > - The littel issue we're discussing internally. Like I've said that one is > blocking us and needs to be resolved before we can switch to enforcing > mode. > > - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar. > > - CodingStyle says: Functions should be a) at most 3 indent levels b) at > most 3 ansi screens long (i.e. 75 lines). i915_parse_cmds violates both > metrics pretty deftly. I think a few refactoring patches to extract > helper functions and structure the flow a bit would be good. Just extracting the handlers for (desc->flags & CMD_DESC_REGISTER) and (desc->flags & CMD_DESC_BITMASK) would go a long way. BR, Jani. > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:43:05PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > > Hi Bradley - > > Apologies for my procrastination with the review; I don't easily recall > as tedious a review as the command and register tables. And I sure have > reviewed a lot of miserable stuff in the past. > > Most infuriatingly, I did not find a single real bug in the code! > > I think we'll need to automate some things going forward, for example > listing the non-conforming length encoding with Damien's tools for cross > checking. > > There are a few subtle points we need to discuss (separate mails > internally) but all in all this series is: > > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula Ok, pulled this one in, thanks a lot for the patches&review. I think it's time we start to move on with the next bits, the batch copy stuff seams like a suitable piece. There's still issues with launching the entire thing in the end, but we can start with the copy infrastructure. Open issues I see still: - The littel issue we're discussing internally. Like I've said that one is blocking us and needs to be resolved before we can switch to enforcing mode. - Secure batch dispatch is still fubar. - CodingStyle says: Functions should be a) at most 3 indent levels b) at most 3 ansi screens long (i.e. 75 lines). i915_parse_cmds violates both metrics pretty deftly. I think a few refactoring patches to extract helper functions and structure the flow a bit would be good. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
Hi Bradley - Apologies for my procrastination with the review; I don't easily recall as tedious a review as the command and register tables. And I sure have reviewed a lot of miserable stuff in the past. Most infuriatingly, I did not find a single real bug in the code! I think we'll need to automate some things going forward, for example listing the non-conforming length encoding with Damien's tools for cross checking. There are a few subtle points we need to discuss (separate mails internally) but all in all this series is: Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > device. > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > generally > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > what >I have so far. > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, > and >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > via >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have not >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > v2: > - Significantly reorder series > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > - Additional tests > > v3: > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > - Improved documentation and commenting > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > Brad Volkin (13): > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 918 > + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 3 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 51 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 18 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 96 +++ > drivers/g
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 05:41:06AM -0700, Jani Nikula wrote: > > Hi Bradley - > > I've now rather meticulously reviewed what *is* in the command and > register tables, and didn't spot any obvious errors. Thanks Jani! I know it's a huge pain, so I appreciate you taking the time for it. > > There is still the review of what is *not* in the command and register > tables, but perhaps should be. This is important for two reasons: > > 1) Any command that should fail that's missing from the tables will >pass. > > 2) Any command that has a non-standard length encoding that's missing >from the tables will confuse the parser. Going out-of-sync with the >commands may fail a good batch, or, worse, a command that should fail >may pass. > > I'm thinking there's a certain fragility in this. In a sense, it would > be better to whitelist everything, and fail everything else, to err on > the safe side. But I'm guessing that's not really feasible. There was some discussion on these issues previously. I think Daniel's response here covers it. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2014-January/039209.html > > Part of the fragility is the immense tediousness of the review... I know > it gets easier with the incremental updates, but this first series is > not fun. (You know, you could have planted a bug to reward me! Or did I > miss it?! ;) Yes, I'm afraid that I've taken all the fun for myself :p Brad > > > BR, > Jani. > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > From: Brad Volkin > > > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > > device. > > > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the > > parser > > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to > > prevent > > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do > > not > > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm > > likely > > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > > > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > > generally > > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. > > > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START > > commands > >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained > >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the > >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > > what > >I have so far. > > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after > > parsing, and > >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, > > we > >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not > >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a > >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to > >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading > > the > >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > > via > >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. > >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC > > issue. > >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have > > not > >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > > > v2: > > - Significantly reorder series > > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > > - Additional tests > > > > v3: > > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > > - Improved documentation and commenting > > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > > > Brad Volkin (13): > > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > > drm/i915: Implement comma
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
Hi Bradley - I've now rather meticulously reviewed what *is* in the command and register tables, and didn't spot any obvious errors. There is still the review of what is *not* in the command and register tables, but perhaps should be. This is important for two reasons: 1) Any command that should fail that's missing from the tables will pass. 2) Any command that has a non-standard length encoding that's missing from the tables will confuse the parser. Going out-of-sync with the commands may fail a good batch, or, worse, a command that should fail may pass. I'm thinking there's a certain fragility in this. In a sense, it would be better to whitelist everything, and fail everything else, to err on the safe side. But I'm guessing that's not really feasible. Part of the fragility is the immense tediousness of the review... I know it gets easier with the incremental updates, but this first series is not fun. (You know, you could have planted a bug to reward me! Or did I miss it?! ;) BR, Jani. On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > device. > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > generally > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > what >I have so far. > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, > and >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > via >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have not >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > v2: > - Significantly reorder series > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > - Additional tests > > v3: > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > - Improved documentation and commenting > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > Brad Volkin (13): > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > drivers/gpu/drm/i91
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:14:38AM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:59:56AM -0800, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:46:35AM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:15:44AM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com > > > wrote: > > > > From: Brad Volkin > > > > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when > > > > reading the > > > >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the > > > > batch via > > > >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale > > > > data. > > > >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC > > > > issue. > > > >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just > > > > have not > > > >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > > > > > Is it still true that we need to test this on vlv? The shmem_pread path > > > really should have fixed this ... Otherwise I think this looks ready to go > > > in, I'll pester Jani for the review. > > > > Yes, I still don't have a system to test on. > > Steal one? I guess we'll notice when our QA runs all this stuff on theirs > ;-) It's not stealing if I give it back :) Anyhow, sorry, the note isn't totally clear. It shouldn't be a problem for now because the parser is still disabled on VLV (and platforms with ppgtt disabled in general). I will look into retesting this though. Brad > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:59:56AM -0800, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:46:35AM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:15:44AM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Brad Volkin > > > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading > > > the > > >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the > > > batch via > > >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale > > > data. > > >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC > > > issue. > > >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have > > > not > > >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > > > Is it still true that we need to test this on vlv? The shmem_pread path > > really should have fixed this ... Otherwise I think this looks ready to go > > in, I'll pester Jani for the review. > > Yes, I still don't have a system to test on. Steal one? I guess we'll notice when our QA runs all this stuff on theirs ;-) Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:46:35AM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:15:44AM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > From: Brad Volkin > > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading > > the > >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > > via > >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. > >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC > > issue. > >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have > > not > >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > Is it still true that we need to test this on vlv? The shmem_pread path > really should have fixed this ... Otherwise I think this looks ready to go > in, I'll pester Jani for the review. Yes, I still don't have a system to test on. Brad > > Thanks, Daniel > > > > > v2: > > - Significantly reorder series > > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > > - Additional tests > > > > v3: > > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > > - Improved documentation and commenting > > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > > > Brad Volkin (13): > > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 918 > > + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 3 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 51 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 18 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 96 +++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 + > > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + > > 11 files changed, 1216 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c > > > > -- > > 1.8.3.2 > > > > ___ > > Intel-gfx mailing list > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:15:44AM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > device. > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > generally > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > what >I have so far. > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, > and >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > via >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have not >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. Is it still true that we need to test this on vlv? The shmem_pread path really should have fixed this ... Otherwise I think this looks ready to go in, I'll pester Jani for the review. Thanks, Daniel > > v2: > - Significantly reorder series > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > - Additional tests > > v3: > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > - Improved documentation and commenting > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > Brad Volkin (13): > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 918 > + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 3 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 51 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 18 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 96 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 + > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + > 11 files changed, 1216 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c > > -- > 1.8.3.2 > > _
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
Daniel, Jani, I think I managed to send this while you were both out and I'm sure it got buried. Can you take a look? I think this rev addresses all of the current comments. Thanks, Brad On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:15:44AM -0800, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > device. > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > generally > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > what >I have so far. > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, > and >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the >batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch > via >pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. >This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. >It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have not >been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. > > v2: > - Significantly reorder series > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > - Additional tests > > v3: > - Don't actually send batches as secure yet > - Improved documentation and commenting > - Many other small cleanups throughout > > Brad Volkin (13): > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 918 > + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 3 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 51 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 18 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 96 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 + > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + > 11 files changed, 1216 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c > > -- > 1.8.3.2 > ___ Intel-gfx mailin
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
From: Brad Volkin Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the device. This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and generally used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a failure described below, I did not see any regressions. At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for what I have so far. 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, and to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. 3) Coherency. I've previously found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. It's possible that the shmem pread refactoring fixes this, I just have not been able to retest due to lack of a VLV system. v2: - Significantly reorder series - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) - Check that parser tables are sorted during init - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam - Additional tests v3: - Don't actually send batches as secure yet - Improved documentation and commenting - Many other small cleanups throughout Brad Volkin (13): drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions drm/i915: Reject privileged commands drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 918 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 3 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 51 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 18 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 96 +++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 + include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + 11 files changed, 1216 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c -- 1.8.3.2 ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
FYI, I did an initial review "sweep" of this. Will focus more on the logic and registers etc. next. BR, Jani. On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > > Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) > require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as > MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some > generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches > (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the > commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the > device. > > This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the > command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software > parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser > determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent > hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. > > The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a > handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are > follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not > test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely > to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. > > WARNING!!! > I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and > generally > used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a > failure described below, I did not see any regressions. However, the series > currently hits a BUG_ON() if you enable the parser due to a regression in > secure > batch handling on -nightly. > > At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. > > 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands >in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained >batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the >requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for > what >I have so far. > 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, > and >to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we >should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not >have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a >sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to >tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. > 3) Coherency. I've found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch > buffer >from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite fast >path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This works > fine >on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. I'm just > unclear >on what the correct flushing or synchronization is for this scenario. This >only matters if we get PPGTT working on VLV and enable the parser there. > > v2: > - Significantly reorder series > - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) > - Check that parser tables are sorted during init > - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression > - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > - Additional tests > > Brad Volkin (13): > drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup > drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic > drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions > drm/i915: Reject privileged commands > drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master > drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa > drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master > drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts > drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks > drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page > drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam > drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 3 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 845 > + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 4 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 48 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 17 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 78 +++ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 ++ > include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + > 11 files changed, 1123 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c > > -- > 1.8.5.2 > > ___ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > htt
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:22:49PM -0800, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:11:17PM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:55:01PM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: Brad Volkin > > > 3) Coherency. I've found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch > > > buffer > > >from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite > > > fast > > >path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This > > > works fine > > >on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. I'm just > > > unclear > > >on what the correct flushing or synchronization is for this scenario. > > > This > > >only matters if we get PPGTT working on VLV and enable the parser > > > there. > > > > Hm, adopting the shmem_read clflushing didn't help for this? That would be > > fairly shocking, since it means our shmem read paths are broken. Which are > > used e.g. by the libva readback code for the encoded bitstream. > > Sorry, not clear enough. I actually haven't retested that part with the > clflushing > added since the opinion seemed to be that leaving the parser disabled for VLV > was ok. > Just left the note for now so it doesn't get lost. Would be nice to give it spin though, since afaik this issue might persist on vlv+1. And I guess we can't keep on sticking our heads into sand about ppgtt not really working on soc platforms ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 02:11:17PM -0800, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:55:01PM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > > From: Brad Volkin > > 3) Coherency. I've found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch > > buffer > >from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite > > fast > >path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This works > > fine > >on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. I'm just > > unclear > >on what the correct flushing or synchronization is for this scenario. > > This > >only matters if we get PPGTT working on VLV and enable the parser there. > > Hm, adopting the shmem_read clflushing didn't help for this? That would be > fairly shocking, since it means our shmem read paths are broken. Which are > used e.g. by the libva readback code for the encoded bitstream. Sorry, not clear enough. I actually haven't retested that part with the clflushing added since the opinion seemed to be that leaving the parser disabled for VLV was ok. Just left the note for now so it doesn't get lost. > > One thing aside: When resending the complete series (even if it's just a > subset) it's better to start a new thread. We tend to use in-reply-to only > when resending individual patches, while the review discussion is still > ongoing. That way the discussion stays together. But when there's been a > bit a longer break it's imo better to start a new thread. Ok, I thought it was more of a blanket thing. Noted. -Brad > > Cheers, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:55:01PM -0800, bradley.d.vol...@intel.com wrote: > From: Brad Volkin > 3) Coherency. I've found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch > buffer >from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite fast >path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This works > fine >on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. I'm just > unclear >on what the correct flushing or synchronization is for this scenario. This >only matters if we get PPGTT working on VLV and enable the parser there. Hm, adopting the shmem_read clflushing didn't help for this? That would be fairly shocking, since it means our shmem read paths are broken. Which are used e.g. by the libva readback code for the encoded bitstream. One thing aside: When resending the complete series (even if it's just a subset) it's better to start a new thread. We tend to use in-reply-to only when resending individual patches, while the review discussion is still ongoing. That way the discussion stays together. But when there's been a bit a longer break it's imo better to start a new thread. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/13] Gen7 batch buffer command parser
From: Brad Volkin Certain OpenGL features (e.g. transform feedback, performance monitoring) require userspace code to submit batches containing commands such as MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM to access various registers. Unfortunately, some generations of the hardware will noop these commands in "unsecure" batches (which includes all userspace batches submitted via i915) even though the commands may be safe and represent the intended programming model of the device. This series introduces a software command parser similar in operation to the command parsing done in hardware for unsecure batches. However, the software parser allows some operations that would be noop'd by hardware, if the parser determines the operation is safe, and submits the batch as "secure" to prevent hardware parsing. Currently the series implements this on IVB and HSW. The series has one piece of prep work, one patch for the parser logic, and a handful of patches to fill out the tables which drive the parser. There are follow-up patches to libdrm and to i-g-t. The i-g-t tests are basic and do not test all of the commands used by the parser on the assumption that I'm likely to make the same mistakes in both the parser and the test. WARNING!!! I've previously run the i-g-t gem_* tests, the piglit quick tests, and generally used Ubuntu 13.10 IVB and HSW systems with the parser running. Aside from a failure described below, I did not see any regressions. However, the series currently hits a BUG_ON() if you enable the parser due to a regression in secure batch handling on -nightly. At this point there are a couple of required/potential improvements. 1) Chained batches. The parser currently allows MI_BATCH_BUFFER_START commands in userspace batches without parsing them. The media driver uses chained batches, so a solution is required. I'm still working through the requirements but don't want to continue delaying the review process for what I have so far. 2) Command buffer copy. To avoid CPU modifications to buffers after parsing, and to avoid GPU modifications to buffers via EUs or commands in the batch, we should copy the userspace batch buffer to memory that userspace does not have access to, map it into GGTT, and execute that batch buffer. I have a sense of how to do this for 1st-level batches, but it may need changes to tie in with the chained batch parsing, so I've again held off. 3) Coherency. I've found a coherency issue on VLV when reading the batch buffer from the CPU during execbuffer2. Userspace writes the batch via pwrite fast path before calling execbuffer2. The parser reads stale data. This works fine on IVB and HSW, so I believe it's an LLC vs. non-LLC issue. I'm just unclear on what the correct flushing or synchronization is for this scenario. This only matters if we get PPGTT working on VLV and enable the parser there. v2: - Significantly reorder series - Scan secure batches (i.e. I915_EXEC_SECURE) - Check that parser tables are sorted during init - Fixed gem_cpu_reloc regression - HAS_CMD_PARSER -> CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam - Additional tests Brad Volkin (13): drm/i915: Refactor shmem pread setup drm/i915: Implement command buffer parsing logic drm/i915: Initial command parser table definitions drm/i915: Reject privileged commands drm/i915: Allow some privileged commands from master drm/i915: Add register whitelists for mesa drm/i915: Add register whitelist for DRM master drm/i915: Enable register whitelist checks drm/i915: Reject commands that explicitly generate interrupts drm/i915: Enable PPGTT command parser checks drm/i915: Reject commands that would store to global HWS page drm/i915: Add a CMD_PARSER_VERSION getparam drm/i915: Enable command parsing by default drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Makefile | 3 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c | 845 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c| 4 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h| 103 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c| 48 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 17 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 5 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h| 78 +++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c| 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h| 32 ++ include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h| 1 + 11 files changed, 1123 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_cmd_parser.c -- 1.8.5.2 ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
