On 22.07.2017 14:00, Daniel Stone wrote:
On 21 July 2017 at 18:32, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
On 20/07/17 01:08 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
DRI3 version 1.1 adds support for explicit format modifiers, including
multi-planar buffers.
Adding mesa-dev, Nicolai and Marek.
We just ran into an issue which might mean that there's still something
missing in this v2 proposal:
The context is DRI3 PRIME render offloading of glxgears (not useful in
practice, but bear with me). The display GPU is Raven Ridge, which requires
that the stride even of linear textures is a multiple of 256 bytes. The
renderer GPU is Polaris12, which still supports smaller alignment of the
stride. With the glxgears window of width 300, the renderer GPU driver
chooses a stride of 304 (* 4 / 256 = 4.75), whereas the display GPU would
require 320 (* 4 / 256 = 5). This cannot work.
The obvious answer is just to increase padding on external/winsys
surfaces? Increasing it for all allocations would probably be a
non-starter, but winsys surfaces are rare enough that you could
probably afford to take the hit, I guess.
I see two basic approaches to solve this:
1. A protocol request for the client to retrieve the display
GPU constraints on the stride (and possibly other parameters) for a
given format and modifier.
+ corresponding new EGL request and new GBM/KMS API :\
2. A protocol request which allows the creation of a pixmap with
given format and modifier. The renderer GPU driver needs to pass in
the stride it would choose, then the display GPU driver can choose a
stride satisfying the constraints on both sides.
Heh, that sounds familiar - DRI2!
Maybe there are other possible approaches I'm missing? Other comments?
I don't have any great solution off the top of my head, but I'd be
inclined to bundle stride in with placement. TTBOMK (from having
looked at radv), buffers shared cross-GPU also need to be allocated
from a separate externally-visible memory heap. And at the moment,
lacking placement information at allocation time (at least for EGL
allocations, via DRIImage), that happens via transparent migration at
import time I think. Placement restrictions would probably also
involve communicating base address alignment requirements.
Stride isn't really in the same category as placement and base address
alignment, though.
Placement and base address alignment requirements can apply to all
possible texture layouts, while the concept of stride is specific to
linear layouts.
Given that, I'm fairly inclined to punt those until we have the grand
glorious allocator, rather than trying to add it to EGL/GBM
separately. The modifiers stuff was a fairly obvious augmentation -
EGL already had no-modifier format import but no query as to which
formats it would accept, and modifiers are a logical extension of
format - but adding the other restrictions is a bigger step forward.
Perhaps a third option would be to encode the required pitch_in_bytes
alignment as part of the modifier?
So DRI3GetSupportedModifiers would return DRM_FORMAT_MOD_LINEAR_256B
when the display GPU is a Raven Ridge.
More generally, we could say that fourcc_mod_code(NONE, k) means that
the pitch_in_bytes has to be a multiple of 2**k for e.g. k <= 31. Or if
you prefer, we could have a stride requirement in elements or pixels
instead of bytes.
Cheers,
Nicolai
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
