On 8/6/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 05:14:33PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:
On 8/5/2015 4:58 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:24:01PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:
There are some allocations that must be only referenced by 32-bit
offsets. To limit the chances of having the first 4GB already full,
objects not requiring this workaround use DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW/
DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags
In specific, any resource used with flat/heapless (0x00000000-0xfffff000)
General State Heap (GSH) or Instruction State Heap (ISH) must be in a
32-bit range, because the General State Offset and Instruction State
Offset are limited to 32-bits.
Objects must have EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag to indicate if
they can be allocated above the 32-bit address range. To limit the
chances of having the first 4GB already full, objects will use
DRM_MM_SEARCH_BELOW + DRM_MM_CREATE_TOP flags when possible.
v2: Changed flag logic from neeeds_32b, to supports_48b.
v3: Moved 48-bit support flag back to exec_object. (Chris, Daniel)
v4: Split pin flags into PIN_ZONE_4G and PIN_HIGH; update PIN_OFFSET_MASK
to use last PIN_ defined instead of hard-coded value; use correct limit
check in eb_vma_misplaced. (Chris)
v5: Don't touch PIN_OFFSET_MASK and update workaround comment (Chris)
v6: Apply pin-high for ggtt too (Chris)
v7: Handle simultaneous pin-high and pin-mappable end correctly (Akash)
Fix check for entries currently using +4GB addresses, use min_t and
other polish in object_bind_to_vm (Chris)
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Akash Goel <akash.g...@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> (v4)
Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thie...@intel.com>
For the record, where can I find the mesa patches for this? I think for
simple things like this a References: line point to the relevant UMD
patches in mailing-list archives would be great.
-Daniel
Here they are,
References:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-July/085501.html and
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2015-July/088003.html
Sounds like there's still another revision we need to do on those?
Yes, a couple of changes, set/clear functions internal in libdrm and
update the symbol-check test.
I put it on hold, because I was also asked to not include the libdrm
changes until the updated kernel header
(EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS flag) was merged.
Then I also need to create a libdrm release, and update mesa's
dependency to this new version number.
-Michel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
