Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On 21/05/2021 17:48, Matthew Brost wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:00:54PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: [snip] + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). I think talk about logical context and its mask is too implementation detail at the uapi level. Instead I would suggest more userspace programmer centric description. Ok, can you give me suggestion? Writing DOC isn't really my strength. Yeah, not mine either. Maybe we need to hire a technical writer. :) I think in general I would just talk a bit how until now submission was along a single engine only and this is adding a wide submission model, expanding how it works with more details and only then talking about logical contexts if needed. It depends a bit whether our userspace clients still predominantly think in terms of engines, or is it contexts? I don't have an answer there. It probably isn't the most important thing and probably with a few tweaks of what you have it can be good enough. Key probably is simply coming up with as intuitive as possible diagrams, with consistent naming, showing how the wide engine is built and how it works. + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] Ah okay so essentially similar to what I was proposing a year ago. But then it is no longer "set_parallel" really. It is one slot in the engine map, right, with the idea to super class intel_context in the implementation? Yes, it is bascially a super class intel_context. In the implementation is parent-child with the parent having a linked list of child intel_contexts. So really a wide virtual engine, as opposed to single one. In which case I think it makes sense to stay close to the existing naming of the load_balance extension for consistency. Load_balance_wide? Load_balance_parallel? Multi? I like the way is named but I also don't want to argue about this as I don't really care. If someone else says this should be renamed, let's do it. I don't care too much apart from a general desire for more consistency and fewer terms in use. I also have to say the notation "CS0[0]" - I who know this problem space am finding it hard to penetrate what that actually means. (Also uppercase IMO makes it hard to read, but maybe it is just me.) Yea, now I think about it CS0[0] is bad because of using numbers twice. How about CSX[0] & CSY[1]? I used upper case because in the i915 all engine classes defines are upper case but agree it might be easier to read it lower case. What would X and Y represent? Or if I paste this part: * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] Which index is engine instance and what is the other index? Looking a bit lower below, extension seems to be taking a 2d array of class:instance pairs, right? If so then reading these docs in order, or even just looking further down, I don't think that is explicitly called out clearly enough. So I think a paragraph or two explaining clearly how the 2d array of engines corresponds to the allowed engines for full virtual engine width. Or maybe just a 2d diagram? 2-wide virtual engine: .engines = [ /* channel 0 allowed engines: */ [cs0, cs1], /* channel 1 allowed engines: */ [cs0, cs1] ] Not sure if that's better. Yes, it is a 2-d array. Agree the explaination could be better. Also to be noted, this only allows uniform number of allowed engines per channel. I am not saying we need the non-uniform setup today but with bonds there isn't this limitation. Not exactly. You could do something like this. witdth = 2 siblings = 2 engines = CSX[0], CSX[1], CSY[0], INVALID This would allow a placement of: CSX[0], CSY[0] CSX[1], CSY[0] In this case the siblings is just a max value of each entry. Okay fair, did not think about that or saw it mentioned. Regards, Tvrtko ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:00:54PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 19/05/2021 00:58, Matthew Brost wrote: > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > v2: > > (Daniel Vetter): > >- Expand logical order explaination > >- Add dummy header > >- Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > >- Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > Cc: Tony Ye > > CC: Carl Zhang > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > --- > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > + > > +/* > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > + * > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf > > IOCTL. > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. > > Once a > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the > > execbuf > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are > > based on > > + * the slots configuration). > > 1) > Expand the term slot here with "slot in the context engine map" least once > for clarity. > Sure. > 2) > About where execbuf will implicitly be finding batches - suggest to also > cover first/last flag here. I know you have it in the readme but I think it > is good if uapi header is as self-contained as possible. > Yep, good idea. > > + * > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this > > + * interface below above the flags. > > + * > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or > > if the > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission > > + * interface. > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > submission > > + * inteface. > > + */ > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > + > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > + __u16 mbz16; > > +/* > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > + * > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a > > mode that > > What do you mean with logically contiguous here? It sounds ambiguous versus > logical vs "normal" engine instance numbers. > This is a little backwards. I think when I wrote this originally the implicit placement comments were first. I can reword this. > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this > > case each > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. > > It is > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement > > (e.g. > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > I think talk about logical context and its mask is too implementation detail > at the uapi level. Instead I would suggest more userspace programmer centric > description. Ok, can you give me suggestion? Writing DOC isn't really my strength. > > > + * > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > + * > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > + * > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] > > + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] > > Ah okay so essentially similar to what I was proposing a year ago. But then > it is no longer "set_parallel" really. It is one slot in
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:41:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 20/05/2021 10:54, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > > > >- Expand logical order explaination > > > > > >- Add dummy header > > > > > >- Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > > > >- Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 > > > > > > ++ > > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > > > > Multiple > > > > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these > > > > > > BBs. Once a > > > > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in > > > > > > each execbuf > > > > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell > > > > > > the execbuf > > > > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs > > > > > > there are based on > > > > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement > > > > > > of the > > > > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no > > > > > > flags) and > > > > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added > > > > > > the in the > > > > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use > > > > > > this > > > > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration > > > > > > invalid or if the > > > > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > > submission > > > > > > + * interface. > > > > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > > submission > > > > > > + * inteface. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel > > > > > > engine */ > > > > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > > > > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class > > > > > > with a > > > > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), > > > > > > add a mode that > > > > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In > > > > > > this case each > > > > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > > > > placed. It is > > > > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > > > > placement (e.g. > > > > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, > > > > > > I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > > > > + *
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:44:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 08:10:59AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:54:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > > > > - Expand logical order explaination > > > > > > - Add dummy header > > > > > > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > > > > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 > > > > > > ++ > > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > > > > Multiple > > > > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these > > > > > > BBs. Once a > > > > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in > > > > > > each execbuf > > > > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell > > > > > > the execbuf > > > > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs > > > > > > there are based on > > > > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement > > > > > > of the > > > > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no > > > > > > flags) and > > > > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added > > > > > > the in the > > > > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use > > > > > > this > > > > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration > > > > > > invalid or if the > > > > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > > submission > > > > > > + * interface. > > > > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > > submission > > > > > > + * inteface. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel > > > > > > engine */ > > > > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > > > > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class > > > > > > with a > > > > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), > > > > > > add a mode that > > > > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In > > > > > > this case each > > > > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > > > > placed. It is > > > > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > > > > placement (e.g. > > > > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, > > > > > > I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > > > > + *
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On 20/05/2021 20:41, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 20/05/2021 10:54, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. v2: (Daniel Vetter): - Expand logical order explaination - Add dummy header - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Tony Ye CC: Carl Zhang Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jason Ekstrand Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h new file mode 100644 index ..8c64b983ccad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ + +/* + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: + * + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf IOCTL. + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are based on + * the slots configuration). + * + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this + * interface below above the flags. + * + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if the + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission + * interface. + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission + * inteface. + */ +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { + struct i915_user_extension base; + + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ + __u16 mbz16; Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. Yea, it is a bit confusing. +/* + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): + * + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode that + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] + * + * Example 2 pseudo code: + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS[0], CS[1] + * CS[0], CS[2] + * CS[1], CS[0] + * CS[1], CS[2] + * CS[2], CS[0] + * CS[2], CS[1] + * + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't care + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, for + * those resources to be scheduled in parallel, and possibly across multiple + * engine classes. + */ So I don't really get what this does compared to setting the flag below. Is this just about running the batchbuffers the wrong way round, i.e. if you have (simplest case) width=2, num_sibglings=1,
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On 19/05/2021 00:58, Matthew Brost wrote: Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. v2: (Daniel Vetter): - Expand logical order explaination - Add dummy header - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Tony Ye CC: Carl Zhang Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jason Ekstrand Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h new file mode 100644 index ..8c64b983ccad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ + +/* + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: + * + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf IOCTL. + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are based on + * the slots configuration). 1) Expand the term slot here with "slot in the context engine map" least once for clarity. 2) About where execbuf will implicitly be finding batches - suggest to also cover first/last flag here. I know you have it in the readme but I think it is good if uapi header is as self-contained as possible. + * + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this + * interface below above the flags. + * + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if the + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission + * interface. + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission + * inteface. + */ +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { + struct i915_user_extension base; + + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ + __u16 mbz16; +/* + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): + * + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode that What do you mean with logically contiguous here? It sounds ambiguous versus logical vs "normal" engine instance numbers. + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). I think talk about logical context and its mask is too implementation detail at the uapi level. Instead I would suggest more userspace programmer centric description. + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] Ah okay so essentially similar to what I was proposing a year ago. But then it is no longer "set_parallel" really. It is one slot in the engine map, right, with the idea to super class intel_context in the implementation? So really a wide virtual engine, as opposed to single one. In which case I think it makes sense to stay close to the existing naming of the load_balance extension for consistency. Load_balance_wide? Load_balance_parallel? Multi? I also have to say the notation "CS0[0]" - I who know this problem space am finding it hard to penetrate what that actually means. (Also uppercase IMO makes it hard to read, but maybe it is just me.) Looking a bit lower below, extension seems to be taking a 2d array of class:instance pairs, right? If so then reading these docs in order, or even just
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 08:10:59AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:54:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > > > - Expand logical order explaination > > > > > - Add dummy header > > > > > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > > > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 > > > > > ++ > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > > > + > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > > > Multiple > > > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these > > > > > BBs. Once a > > > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each > > > > > execbuf > > > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell > > > > > the execbuf > > > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there > > > > > are based on > > > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of > > > > > the > > > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no > > > > > flags) and > > > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the > > > > > in the > > > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use > > > > > this > > > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration > > > > > invalid or if the > > > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > submission > > > > > + * interface. > > > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > submission > > > > > + * inteface. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > > > + > > > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine > > > > > */ > > > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > > > > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class > > > > > with a > > > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add > > > > > a mode that > > > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In > > > > > this case each > > > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > > > placed. It is > > > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > > > placement (e.g. > > > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, > > > > > I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > > > > + * VE[0]
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:57:44AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 20/05/2021 10:54, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > > >- Expand logical order explaination > > > > >- Add dummy header > > > > >- Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > > >- Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 > > > > > ++ > > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > > > + > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > > > Multiple > > > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these > > > > > BBs. Once a > > > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each > > > > > execbuf > > > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell > > > > > the execbuf > > > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there > > > > > are based on > > > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of > > > > > the > > > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no > > > > > flags) and > > > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the > > > > > in the > > > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use > > > > > this > > > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration > > > > > invalid or if the > > > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > submission > > > > > + * interface. > > > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > > > submission > > > > > + * inteface. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > > > + > > > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine > > > > > */ > > > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > > > > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class > > > > > with a > > > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add > > > > > a mode that > > > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In > > > > > this case each > > > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > > > placed. It is > > > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > > > placement (e.g. > > > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, > > > > > I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > > > > + * VE[0]
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 11:54:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > > - Expand logical order explaination > > > > - Add dummy header > > > > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ > > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > > + > > > > +/* > > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > > + * > > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > > Multiple > > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. > > > > Once a > > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each > > > > execbuf > > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the > > > > execbuf > > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there > > > > are based on > > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > > + * > > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the > > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) > > > > and > > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the > > > > in the > > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this > > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > > + * > > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid > > > > or if the > > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission > > > > + * interface. > > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > > submission > > > > + * inteface. > > > > + */ > > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > > + > > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ > > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > > > +/* > > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > > + * > > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a > > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a > > > > mode that > > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this > > > > case each > > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > > placed. It is > > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > > placement (e.g. > > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > > + * > > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > > > + * > > > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > > > + * > > > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > > > + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] > > > > + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] > > > > + * > > > > + * Example 2 pseudo code: > > > > + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X > > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, > > > > + *
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On 20/05/2021 10:54, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost wrote: On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. v2: (Daniel Vetter): - Expand logical order explaination - Add dummy header - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Tony Ye CC: Carl Zhang Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jason Ekstrand Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h new file mode 100644 index ..8c64b983ccad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ + +/* + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: + * + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf IOCTL. + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are based on + * the slots configuration). + * + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this + * interface below above the flags. + * + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if the + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission + * interface. + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission + * inteface. + */ +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { + struct i915_user_extension base; + + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ + __u16 mbz16; Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. Yea, it is a bit confusing. +/* + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): + * + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode that + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] + * + * Example 2 pseudo code: + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS[0], CS[1] + * CS[0], CS[2] + * CS[1], CS[0] + * CS[1], CS[2] + * CS[2], CS[0] + * CS[2], CS[1] + * + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't care + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, for + * those resources to be scheduled in parallel, and possibly across multiple + * engine classes. + */ So I don't really get what this does compared to setting the flag below. Is this just about running the batchbuffers the wrong way round, i.e. if you have (simplest case) width=2, num_sibglings=1, engines=CS[0], CS[1] Then both CS[0], CS[1] and CS[1], CS[0] are possible options for running 2 batches? Iow, the backend is
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 7:19 PM Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > > > v2: > > > (Daniel Vetter): > > > - Expand logical order explaination > > > - Add dummy header > > > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > Cc: Tony Ye > > > CC: Carl Zhang > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > > --- > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > > + * > > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single > > > execbuf IOCTL. > > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. > > > Multiple > > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. > > > Once a > > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each > > > execbuf > > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the > > > execbuf > > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are > > > based on > > > + * the slots configuration). > > > + * > > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the > > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and > > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in > > > the > > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this > > > + * interface below above the flags. > > > + * > > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid > > > or if the > > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission > > > + * interface. > > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > > submission > > > + * inteface. > > > + */ > > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > > + > > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ > > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > > + __u16 mbz16; > > > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > > > > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > > > +/* > > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > > + * > > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a > > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a > > > mode that > > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this > > > case each > > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can > > > placed. It is > > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive > > > placement (e.g. > > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > > + * > > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > > + * > > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > > + * > > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > > + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] > > > + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] > > > + * > > > + * Example 2 pseudo code: > > > + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X > > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, > > > + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) > > > + * > > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > > + * CS[0], CS[1] > > > + * CS[0], CS[2] > > > + * CS[1], CS[0] > > > + * CS[1], CS[2] > > > + * CS[2], CS[0] > > > + * CS[2], CS[1] > > > + * > > > + * > > > + * This can also be though of as
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:10:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > > > v2: > > (Daniel Vetter): > > - Expand logical order explaination > > - Add dummy header > > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > > Cc: Tony Ye > > CC: Carl Zhang > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > > --- > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index ..8c64b983ccad > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > > + > > +/* > > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > > + * > > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf > > IOCTL. > > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple > > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. > > Once a > > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf > > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the > > execbuf > > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are > > based on > > + * the slots configuration). > > + * > > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the > > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and > > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the > > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this > > + * interface below above the flags. > > + * > > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or > > if the > > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission > > + * interface. > > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / > > submission > > + * inteface. > > + */ > > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > > + struct i915_user_extension base; > > + > > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ > > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > > + __u16 mbz16; > > Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > Yea, it is a bit confusing. > > +/* > > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > > + * > > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a > > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a > > mode that > > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this > > case each > > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. > > It is > > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement > > (e.g. > > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > > + * > > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > > + * > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > > + * > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] > > + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] > > + * > > + * Example 2 pseudo code: > > + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X > > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > > + * set_engines(INVALID) > > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, > > + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) > > + * > > + * Results in the following valid placements: > > + * CS[0], CS[1] > > + * CS[0], CS[2] > > + * CS[1], CS[0] > > + * CS[1], CS[2] > > + * CS[2], CS[0] > > + * CS[2], CS[1] > > + * > > + * > > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > > + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] > > + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] > > + > > + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't > > care > > + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, > > for > > + * those resources to be scheduled
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On 19/05/2021 12:10, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. v2: (Daniel Vetter): - Expand logical order explaination - Add dummy header - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Tony Ye CC: Carl Zhang Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jason Ekstrand Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h new file mode 100644 index ..8c64b983ccad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ + +/* + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: + * + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf IOCTL. + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are based on + * the slots configuration). + * + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this + * interface below above the flags. + * + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if the + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission + * interface. + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission + * inteface. + */ +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { + struct i915_user_extension base; + + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ + __u16 mbz16; Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. +/* + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): + * + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode that + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] + * + * Example 2 pseudo code: + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS[0], CS[1] + * CS[0], CS[2] + * CS[1], CS[0] + * CS[1], CS[2] + * CS[2], CS[0] + * CS[2], CS[1] + * + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't care + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, for + * those resources to be scheduled in parallel, and possibly across multiple + * engine classes. + */ So I don't really get what this does compared to setting the flag below. Is this just about running the batchbuffers the wrong way round, i.e. if you have (simplest case) width=2, num_sibglings=1, engines=CS[0], CS[1] Then both CS[0], CS[1] and CS[1], CS[0] are possible options for running 2 batches? Iow, the backend is allowed to run the batchbuffers the wrong way round, which gains us nothing, since we assume the batches take equally long
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:58:30PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. > > v2: > (Daniel Vetter): > - Expand logical order explaination > - Add dummy header > - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL > - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin > Cc: Tony Ye > CC: Carl Zhang > Cc: Daniel Vetter > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost > --- > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ > Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- > 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > new file mode 100644 > index ..8c64b983ccad > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h > @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ > +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see > i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ > + > +/* > + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: > + * > + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf > IOCTL. > + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple > + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a > + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf > + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf > + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are > based on > + * the slots configuration). > + * > + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the > + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and > + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the > + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this > + * interface below above the flags. > + * > + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if > the > + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission > + * interface. > + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission > + * inteface. > + */ > +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { > + struct i915_user_extension base; > + > + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ > + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ > + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ > + __u16 mbz16; Ok the big picture looks reasonable now, the flags still confuse me. > +/* > + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): > + * > + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a > + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode > that > + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case > each > + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It > is > + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement > (e.g. > + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). > + * > + * Example 1 pseudo code: > + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > + * set_engines(INVALID) > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, > + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) > + * > + * Results in the following valid placements: > + * CS0[0], CS1[0] > + * CS0[0], CS1[1] > + * CS0[1], CS1[0] > + * CS0[1], CS1[1] > + * > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] > + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] > + * > + * Example 2 pseudo code: > + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X > + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE > + * set_engines(INVALID) > + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, > + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) > + * > + * Results in the following valid placements: > + * CS[0], CS[1] > + * CS[0], CS[2] > + * CS[1], CS[0] > + * CS[1], CS[2] > + * CS[2], CS[0] > + * CS[2], CS[1] > + * > + * > + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: > + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] > + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] > + > + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't > care > + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, for > + * those resources to be scheduled in parallel, and possibly across multiple > + * engine classes. > + */ So I don't really get what this does compared to setting the flag below. Is this just about running the batchbuffers the wrong way round, i.e. if you have (simplest case) width=2, num_sibglings=1, engines=CS[0], CS[1] Then both CS[0], CS[1] and CS[1], CS[0] are possible
[Intel-gfx] [RFC 2/2] drm/doc/rfc: i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan
Add entry fpr i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan. v2: (Daniel Vetter): - Expand logical order explaination - Add dummy header - Only allow N BBs in execbuf IOCTL - Configure parallel submission per slot not per gem context Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: Tony Ye CC: Carl Zhang Cc: Daniel Vetter Cc: Jason Ekstrand Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h | 144 ++ Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_scheduler.rst | 53 ++- 2 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h new file mode 100644 index ..8c64b983ccad --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_parallel_execbuf.h @@ -0,0 +1,144 @@ +#define I915_CONTEXT_ENGINES_EXT_PARALLEL_SUBMIT 2 /* see i915_context_engines_parallel_submit */ + +/* + * i915_context_engines_parallel_submit: + * + * Setup a slot to allow multiple BBs to be submitted in a single execbuf IOCTL. + * Those BBs will then be scheduled to run on the GPU in parallel. Multiple + * hardware contexts are created internally in the i915 run these BBs. Once a + * slot is configured for N BBs only N BBs can be submitted in each execbuf + * IOCTL and this is implict behavior (e.g. the user doesn't tell the execbuf + * IOCTL there are N BBs, the execbuf IOCTL know how many BBs there are based on + * the slots configuration). + * + * Their are two currently defined ways to control the placement of the + * hardware contexts on physical engines: default behavior (no flags) and + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS (a flag). More flags may be added the in the + * future as new hardware / use cases arise. Details of how to use this + * interface below above the flags. + * + * Returns -EINVAL if hardware context placement configuration invalid or if the + * placement configuration isn't supported on the platform / submission + * interface. + * Returns -ENODEV if extension isn't supported on the platform / submission + * inteface. + */ +struct i915_context_engines_parallel_submit { + struct i915_user_extension base; + + __u16 engine_index; /* slot for parallel engine */ + __u16 width;/* number of contexts per parallel engine */ + __u16 num_siblings; /* number of siblings per context */ + __u16 mbz16; +/* + * Default placement behvavior (currently unsupported): + * + * Rather than restricting parallel submission to a single class with a + * logically contiguous placement (I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS), add a mode that + * enables parallel submission across multiple engine classes. In this case each + * context's logical engine mask indicates where that context can placed. It is + * implied in this mode that all contexts have mutual exclusive placement (e.g. + * if one context is running CS0 no other contexts can run on CS0). + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CSX[Y] = engine class X, logical instance Y + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=2, + * engines=CS0[0],CS0[1],CS1[0],CS1[1]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS0[0], CS1[0] + * CS0[0], CS1[1] + * CS0[1], CS1[0] + * CS0[1], CS1[1] + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS0[0], CS0[1] + * VE[1] = CS1[0], CS1[1] + * + * Example 2 pseudo code: + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=3, + * engines=CS[0],CS[1],CS[2],CS[0],CS[1],CS[2]) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS[0], CS[1] + * CS[0], CS[2] + * CS[1], CS[0] + * CS[1], CS[2] + * CS[2], CS[0] + * CS[2], CS[1] + * + * + * This can also be though of as 2 virtual engines: + * VE[0] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + * VE[1] = CS[0], CS[1], CS[2] + + * This enables a use case where all engines are created equally, we don't care + * where they are scheduled, we just want a certain number of resources, for + * those resources to be scheduled in parallel, and possibly across multiple + * engine classes. + */ + +/* + * I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS - Create implict bonds between each context. + * Each context must have the same number sibling and bonds are implictly create + * of the siblings. + * + * All of the below examples are in logical space. + * + * Example 1 pseudo code: + * CS[X] = generic engine of same class, logical instance X + * INVALID = I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_INVALID_NONE + * set_engines(INVALID) + * set_parallel(engine_index=0, width=2, num_siblings=1, + * engines=CS[0],CS[1], flags=I915_PARALLEL_IMPLICT_BONDS) + * + * Results in the following valid placements: + * CS[0], CS[1] + * + *