On 8 September 2017 at 17:54, Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antogno...@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 08:32:05AM -0700, Marathe, Yogesh wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Emil Velikov [mailto:emil.l.veli...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 8:28 PM >> > To: Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >> > Cc: Tomasz Figa <tf...@chromium.org>; Antognolli, Rafael >> > <rafael.antogno...@intel.com>; Janes, Mark A <mark.a.ja...@intel.com>; >> > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Gao, Shuo <shuo....@intel.com>; Liu, >> > Zhiquan <zhiquan....@intel.com>; dani...@collabora.com; >> > nicolai.haeh...@amd.com; e...@engestrom.ch; Wu, Zhongmin >> > <zhongmin...@intel.com>; kenn...@whitecape.org; Kondapally, Kalyan >> > <kalyan.kondapa...@intel.com>; fernetme...@online.de; >> > tarc...@itsqueeze.com; varad.gau...@collabora.com >> > Subject: Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH v6.2] egl: Allow creation of per surface out >> > fence >> > >> > On 8 September 2017 at 14:47, Marathe, Yogesh <yogesh.mara...@intel.com> >> > wrote: >> > > 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? >> > > >> > In all fairness there was a few wtf moments as Mark mentioned the issue. >> > As on >> > a quick look "it cannot happen" :-\ >> > >> > One way is to add some printfs "debugging" across the board and check with >> > Mark if he can run (only?) the affected test on the CI. >> > >> >> Number of tests failing on CI due to this are huge, any 'one' can be picked >> up. I do have >> my CI branch setup now but I don’t think I can use it for debugging (not >> advised). I'll sync >> up with Mark again. Just wanted a confirmation, I'm not missing something >> obvious. Thanks. > > Hi Yogesh, > > I replied to you already when you messaged in private, the error is not > related to the kernel returning true for that, it's related to a memory > corruption caused by wrong use of the dri2_surf_init inside > platform_x11_dri3.c. Quoting myself: > > "More specifically, it looks like this test fails every time: > > glcts -n dEQP-EGL.functional.query_context.get_current_context.rgb888_window > > I see several valgrind warnings inside platform_x11_dri3.c. I believe you are > probably accessing the dri2_surf before it was allocated, or after it was > freed..." > > When I tested this back then, the "out_fence_enable" (or whatever was called) > in dri2 was false, but after a couple runs it would become a bogus number, > which also points to memory corruption. > > I suggest ignoring the kernel and focusing on valgrind debugging. > Nicely spotted there Rafael.
The issue is that the dri3 surface primitive wraps around _EGLSurface. Thus as we reference the new variables we effectively write onto the loader_dri3 bits. And at a later stage the dri3 loader code toggles those to "use out fence = true". -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
