Hello Folks, Sorry for late reply, I took quite some time to CTS up, comments below.
> -----Original Message----- > From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf > Of Marathe, Yogesh > Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 10:16 AM > To: Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org> > Cc: Gao, Shuo <shuo....@intel.com>; Liu, Zhiquan <zhiquan....@intel.com>; > dani...@collabora.com; nicolai.haeh...@amd.com; Antognolli, Rafael > <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>; e...@engestrom.ch; Emil Velikov > <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com>; Wu, Zhongmin <zhongmin...@intel.com>; > kenn...@whitecape.org; Kondapally, Kalyan <kalyan.kondapa...@intel.com>; > fernetme...@online.de; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; > tarc...@itsqueeze.com; varad.gau...@collabora.com > Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v6.2] egl: Allow creation of per surface out > fence > > Tomasz, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On > > Behalf Of Tomasz Figa > > Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 9:53 AM > > To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Marathe, Yogesh > > <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: mesa-dev [mailto:mesa-dev-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Emil Velikov > > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:44 PM > > >> To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> > > >> Cc: Gao, Shuo <shuo....@intel.com>; Liu, Zhiquan > > >> <zhiquan....@intel.com>; dani...@collabora.com; > > >> nicolai.haeh...@amd.com; Antognolli, Rafael > > >> <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>; e...@engestrom.ch; Wu, Zhongmin > > >> <zhongmin...@intel.com>; tf...@chromium.org; > kenn...@whitecape.org; > > >> Kondapally, Kalyan <kalyan.kondapa...@intel.com>; > > >> fernetme...@online.de; mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; > > >> tarc...@itsqueeze.com; varad.gau...@collabora.com > > >> Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v6.2] egl: Allow creation of per > > >> surface out fence > > >> > > >> On 30 August 2017 at 15:39, Marathe, Yogesh > > >> <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thank you, Tomasz and all involved for the help and guidance. > > >> > > > >> Our excitement was short lived - see commit > > >> 8c9df0daf20206fafb7df77b1edcbc41b8e91372. > > >> > > >> Seems the patch was not run through the Intel CI, though I'm should > > >> not have assumed that you're aware of if. > > >> Please get in touch with Mark Janes (Cc'd here, janesma on IRC). He > > >> can set you up and/or run a branch for you. > > >> > > > > > > No problem. I will contact Mark. > > > > > > Primarily looks like platform / kernel version issue. > > > intel_get_boolean() for I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE is false, but I > > > see following in i915_drv.c:915_getparam in kernel, no clue why that > > > would come false in UMD. > > > > > > ... > > > case I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE: > > > /* For the time being all of these are always true; > > > * if some supported hardware does not have one of these > > > * features this value needs to be provided from > > > * INTEL_INFO(), a feature macro, or similar. > > > */ > > > value = 1; > > > break; > > > ... > > > > Which kernel are you looking at? Remember that not everyone uses > > current upstream master. There is a number of upstream stable releases > > and downstream forks. Grepping for I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE on > > http://elixir.free-electrons.com, shows that it was only added in Linux > > 4.12. > > > > I'm on 4.9.x but I see my kernel tree has following patch, so this looks > like it is > done for android (cherry picked / backport). That’s why it worked for me > always! > > commit f0683754f03fa308a2657cb1dadbf235c9607188 > Author: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Date: Fri Jan 27 09:40:08 2017 +0000 > > drm/i915: Support explicit fencing for execbuf > > Nonetheless, as you mentioned, I've synced up with Mark and we've created a > separate branch where CTS / intel mesa CI can run. Let me try to fix this. > > Caveat: To have flatland running on android there was another issue in kernel > which needed a fix. Details - > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101656 I was able to run CTS (https://github.com/KhronosGroup/VK-GL-CTS) on this patch for x11_egl. I see exact same results before and after patch on Ubuntu 16.04 setup. Mark had also mentioned this works fine on 4.12 onwards (essentially with drm/i915: Support explicit fencing for execbuf patch in kernel). Regarding the primary reason why this was reverted mesa/drivers/dri/i965/brw_sync.c:491: brw_dri_create_fence_fd: Assertion `brw->screen->has_exec_fence' failed. This assertion evident on older kernels. Although I'm bit surprised here after looking at the code. Older kernels where this explicit fencing is not supported must've returned 'false' for has_exec_fence in intelInitScreen2(). screen->has_exec_fence = intel_get_boolean(screen, I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_FENCE); It appears that’s coming 'true' and due to that we set enable_out_fence in dri2_init_surface() (based on get_capabilities()) which causes create_fence_fd call on non-supported kernels. Isn't this strange? Can someone please comment? Regards, Yogesh. > > > Best regards, > > Tomasz > > _______________________________________________ > > mesa-dev mailing list > > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev