On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:22:42AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
Yeah, MAP_FIXED sounds a bit more ambitious and though I think it would
work for OCL 2.0 pointer sharing, it's a little different than we were
planning.
To summarize, we have three possible approaches, each with its own
Yeah my big concern was with not making this opt-in like the old patch or
adding an interface which does a lot more than what we need right now
(Chris' patch). Just a bitflag to ask for this seems best and is fine with me.
And for the implementation I think we should reuse the PIN_BIAS
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:09:53PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:22:42AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
Yeah, MAP_FIXED sounds a bit more ambitious and though I think it would
work for OCL 2.0 pointer sharing, it's a little different than we were
planning.
Yeah, MAP_FIXED sounds a bit more ambitious and though I think it would
work for OCL 2.0 pointer sharing, it's a little different than we were
planning.
To summarize, we have three possible approaches, each with its own
problems:
1) simple patch to avoid binding at address 0 in PPGTT:
Yeah we'll rebind if needed. We can make this an execbuf or context
flag, in either case anything that gets executed by ocl will be moved
around if it accidentally ended up at the wrong place. The only
exception is if a buffer is pinned already, i.e. if you're doing
direct rendering to the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:10:28PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On 03/16/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:10:28PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On 03/16/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent:
; Weinehall, David
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [Beignet] Preventing zero GPU virtual address
allocation
On 03/16/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch
On 03/16/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:14 AM
To: Chris Wilson; Daniel Vetter;
On 03/16/2015 01:52 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:14 AM
To: Chris Wilson; Daniel Vetter;
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 02:29:24AM +, Song, Ruiling wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:14 AM
To: Chris Wilson; Daniel Vetter; Weinehall, David; Zou, Nanhai; Song,
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of Daniel
Vetter
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:14 AM
To: Chris Wilson; Daniel Vetter; Weinehall, David; Zou, Nanhai; Song, Ruiling;
Vetter, Daniel; intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; Yang, Rong R;
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:58:47PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:27:38AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
If supporting systems without full ppgtt is a requirement for you (still
wonky on gen8 a bit, so might be a good strategy) then imo it's the
PIN_BIAS idea I've laid
On 2015-03-09 14:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:34:46AM +, Zou, Nanhai wrote:
We don't need MAP_FIXED, we just want to avoid address 0 to be allocated.
Though I think using MAP_FIXED is overkill, will bring much unnecessary
complexity on both kernel and beignet side.
I
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:10:56AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On 2015-03-09 14:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:34:46AM +, Zou, Nanhai wrote:
We don't need MAP_FIXED, we just want to avoid address 0 to be allocated.
Though I think using MAP_FIXED is overkill, will
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:10:56AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
On 2015-03-09 14:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:34:46AM +, Zou, Nanhai wrote:
We don't need MAP_FIXED, we just want to avoid address 0 to be allocated.
Though I think using MAP_FIXED is overkill, will
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:27:38AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
If supporting systems without full ppgtt is a requirement for you (still
wonky on gen8 a bit, so might be a good strategy) then imo it's the
PIN_BIAS idea I've laid out earlier in this thread. That one will work
everywhere. softpin
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:34:46AM +, Zou, Nanhai wrote:
We don't need MAP_FIXED, we just want to avoid address 0 to be allocated.
Though I think using MAP_FIXED is overkill, will bring much unnecessary
complexity on both kernel and beignet side.
I don't mind if people can provide
-Original Message-
From: Chris Wilson [mailto:ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 8:02 PM
To: Zou, Nanhai
Cc: Daniel Vetter; Song, Ruiling; Vetter, Daniel;
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org;
Yang, Rong R; beig...@lists.freedesktop.org; Weinehall, David
Subject:
We don't need MAP_FIXED, we just want to avoid address 0 to be allocated.
Though I think using MAP_FIXED is overkill, will bring much unnecessary
complexity on both kernel and beignet side.
I don't mind if people can provide stable MAP_FIXED patches to resolve this
problem a few months or years
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:11:18AM +, Zou, Nanhai wrote:
I don't understand why we need a complex solution when there is already a
simple solution with patch.
What is the drawback of reserving page 0?
Before we going to that complex solution, could we just reserve page zero?
It is simple
21 matches
Mail list logo
