Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Ignore this, all kinds of patches from wrong tree stuff going on here.
Dave.
On 27 June 2017 at 07:19, Dave Airlie wrote:
> From: Dave Airlie
>
> This adds the corresponding code for libdrm to use the new
> kernel interfaces for semaphores.
>
> This will be used by radv to implement shared semaphores.
>
> TODO: Version checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie
> ---
> amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 28 +
> amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 161
> ---
> include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 28 +
> 3 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> index 7b26a04..747e248 100644
> --- a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> +++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> @@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ typedef struct amdgpu_va *amdgpu_va_handle;
> */
> typedef struct amdgpu_semaphore *amdgpu_semaphore_handle;
>
> +typedef uint32_t amdgpu_sem_handle;
> +
>
> /*--*/
> /* -- Structures --
> */
>
> /*--*/
> @@ -365,6 +367,16 @@ struct amdgpu_cs_request {
> struct amdgpu_cs_fence_info fence_info;
> };
>
> +struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem {
> + /*
> +*
> +*/
> + uint32_t number_of_wait_sem;
> + uint32_t *wait_sems;
> + uint32_t number_of_signal_sem;
> + uint32_t *signal_sems;
> +};
> +
> /**
> * Structure which provide information about GPU VM MC Address space
> * alignments requirements
> @@ -882,6 +894,12 @@ int amdgpu_cs_submit(amdgpu_context_handle context,
> struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
> uint32_t number_of_requests);
>
> +int amdgpu_cs_submit_sem(amdgpu_context_handle context,
> +uint64_t flags,
> +struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
> +struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *ibs_sem,
> +uint32_t number_of_requests);
> +
> /**
> * Query status of Command Buffer Submission
> *
> @@ -1255,4 +1273,14 @@ int
> amdgpu_cs_destroy_semaphore(amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem);
> */
> const char *amdgpu_get_marketing_name(amdgpu_device_handle dev);
>
> +int amdgpu_cs_create_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> +amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
> +int amdgpu_cs_export_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + amdgpu_sem_handle sem,
> +int *shared_handle);
> +int amdgpu_cs_import_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + int shared_handle,
> +amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
> +int amdgpu_cs_destroy_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + amdgpu_sem_handle sem);
> #endif /* #ifdef _AMDGPU_H_ */
> diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> index fb5b3a8..7283327 100644
> --- a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> +++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> @@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ int amdgpu_cs_query_reset_state(amdgpu_context_handle
> context,
> * \sa amdgpu_cs_submit()
> */
> static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle context,
> - struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request)
> + struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
> + struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *sem_request)
> {
> union drm_amdgpu_cs cs;
> uint64_t *chunk_array;
> @@ -178,9 +179,11 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
> context,
> struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_data *chunk_data;
> struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *dependencies = NULL;
> struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *sem_dependencies = NULL;
> + struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *wait_sem_dependencies = NULL;
> + struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *signal_sem_dependencies = NULL;
> struct list_head *sem_list;
> amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem, tmp;
> - uint32_t i, size, sem_count = 0;
> + uint32_t i, j, size, sem_count = 0;
> bool user_fence;
> int r = 0;
>
> @@ -196,7 +199,7 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
> context,
> }
> user_fence = (ibs_request->fence_info.handle != NULL);
>
> - size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1;
> + size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1 +
> (sem_request ? 2 : 0);
>
> chunk_array = alloca(sizeof(uint64_t) * size);
> chunks = alloca(sizeof(struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk) * size);
> @@ -308,6 +311,45 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
> context,
> chunks[i].chunk_data = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)sem_dependencies;
> }
>
> + if (sem_request) {
> + if (sem_request->number_of_wait_sem) {
> + wait_sem_dependencies = malloc(sizeof(struct
> drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem) * sem_request->number_
[PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
From: Dave Airlie
This adds the corresponding code for libdrm to use the new
kernel interfaces for semaphores.
This will be used by radv to implement shared semaphores.
TODO: Version checks.
Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie
---
amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 28 +
amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 161 ---
include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 28 +
3 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
index 7b26a04..747e248 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
@@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ typedef struct amdgpu_va *amdgpu_va_handle;
*/
typedef struct amdgpu_semaphore *amdgpu_semaphore_handle;
+typedef uint32_t amdgpu_sem_handle;
+
/*--*/
/* -- Structures -- */
/*--*/
@@ -365,6 +367,16 @@ struct amdgpu_cs_request {
struct amdgpu_cs_fence_info fence_info;
};
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem {
+ /*
+*
+*/
+ uint32_t number_of_wait_sem;
+ uint32_t *wait_sems;
+ uint32_t number_of_signal_sem;
+ uint32_t *signal_sems;
+};
+
/**
* Structure which provide information about GPU VM MC Address space
* alignments requirements
@@ -882,6 +894,12 @@ int amdgpu_cs_submit(amdgpu_context_handle context,
struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
uint32_t number_of_requests);
+int amdgpu_cs_submit_sem(amdgpu_context_handle context,
+uint64_t flags,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *ibs_sem,
+uint32_t number_of_requests);
+
/**
* Query status of Command Buffer Submission
*
@@ -1255,4 +1273,14 @@ int amdgpu_cs_destroy_semaphore(amdgpu_semaphore_handle
sem);
*/
const char *amdgpu_get_marketing_name(amdgpu_device_handle dev);
+int amdgpu_cs_create_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_export_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem,
+int *shared_handle);
+int amdgpu_cs_import_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ int shared_handle,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_destroy_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem);
#endif /* #ifdef _AMDGPU_H_ */
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
index fb5b3a8..7283327 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ int amdgpu_cs_query_reset_state(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
* \sa amdgpu_cs_submit()
*/
static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle context,
- struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request)
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *sem_request)
{
union drm_amdgpu_cs cs;
uint64_t *chunk_array;
@@ -178,9 +179,11 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_data *chunk_data;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *dependencies = NULL;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *wait_sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *signal_sem_dependencies = NULL;
struct list_head *sem_list;
amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem, tmp;
- uint32_t i, size, sem_count = 0;
+ uint32_t i, j, size, sem_count = 0;
bool user_fence;
int r = 0;
@@ -196,7 +199,7 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
}
user_fence = (ibs_request->fence_info.handle != NULL);
- size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1;
+ size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1 +
(sem_request ? 2 : 0);
chunk_array = alloca(sizeof(uint64_t) * size);
chunks = alloca(sizeof(struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk) * size);
@@ -308,6 +311,45 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
chunks[i].chunk_data = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)sem_dependencies;
}
+ if (sem_request) {
+ if (sem_request->number_of_wait_sem) {
+ wait_sem_dependencies = malloc(sizeof(struct
drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem) * sem_request->number_of_wait_sem);
+ if (!wait_sem_dependencies) {
+ r = -ENOMEM;
+ goto error_unlock;
+ }
+ for (j = 0; j < sem_request->number_of_wait_sem; j++) {
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *dep =
&wait_sem_dependencies[
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Hi Dave,
Barring the other discussions, allow me to put a couple of trivial suggestions:
Please re-wrap the long lines to follow existing code style.
On 14 March 2017 at 00:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
> @@ -882,6 +894,12 @@ int amdgpu_cs_submit(amdgpu_context_handle context,
> struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
> uint32_t number_of_requests);
>
> +int amdgpu_cs_submit_sem(amdgpu_context_handle context,
> +uint64_t flags,
> +struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
> +struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *ibs_sem,
> +uint32_t number_of_requests);
> +
> /**
> * Query status of Command Buffer Submission
> *
> @@ -1255,4 +1273,14 @@ int
> amdgpu_cs_destroy_semaphore(amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem);
> */
> const char *amdgpu_get_marketing_name(amdgpu_device_handle dev);
>
> +int amdgpu_cs_create_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> +amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
> +int amdgpu_cs_export_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + amdgpu_sem_handle sem,
> +int *shared_handle);
> +int amdgpu_cs_import_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + int shared_handle,
> +amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
> +int amdgpu_cs_destroy_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
> + amdgpu_sem_handle sem);
The new symbols should be added to the amdgpu-symbol-check test.
If in doubt - run `make -C amdgpu check'
> --- a/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h
> +++ b/include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h
Please sync this as PATCH 1/2 via "make headers_install" + cp + git
commit -asm "Generated using make headers_install.\nGenerated from
$tree/branch commit $sha."
There's a handful of other changes that are missing/should be merged.
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ extern "C" {
> +struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem {
> + uint32_t handle;
> +};
> +
Seems unused in the UAPI header - might what to add a note ?
Also sizeof(struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem) is not multiple of 64bit -
worth mentioning that it's safe and/or why ?
Thanks
Emil
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Am 15.03.2017 um 09:48 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 01:01:19AM +0100, Marek Olšák wrote: While it's nice that you are all having fun here, I don't think that's the way to communicate this. The truth is, if AMD had an open source driver using the semaphores (e.g. Vulkan) and if the libdrm semaphore code was merged, Dave wouldn't be able to change it, ever. If a dependent open source project relies on some libdrm interface, that interface is set in stone. So AMD wouldn't be able to change it either. Unfortunately, such an open source project doesn't exist, so the community can assume that this libdrm code is still in the "initial design phase". Dave has an upper hand here, because he actually has an open source project that will use this, while AMD doesn't (yet). However, AMD can still negotiate some details here, i.e. do a proper review. Fully agreed, that's why there was this "internal" qualifier. If you do this internally, then it's not final, if you discuss it here on the m-l, it actually matters. So drag your internal teams into the public, and it's all fine. Unfortunately it's not done with that. You also need to raise company wide awareness of changed needs. For example the concept that changes aren't allowed to break older upstream components is completely new to most teams inside AMD. It's a rather painful learning curve when you want to move projects from closed source to open source. Christian. -Daniel Marek On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Harry Wentland: On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) I'd wear it to the office. https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg I'm only at an AMD office every few years, so that's probably not worth it. Anyway it's really something we should keep in mind if we want to upstream things. Christian. Harry David Zhou Christian. -Daniel ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 01:01:19AM +0100, Marek Olšák wrote: > While it's nice that you are all having fun here, I don't think that's > the way to communicate this. > > The truth is, if AMD had an open source driver using the semaphores > (e.g. Vulkan) and if the libdrm semaphore code was merged, Dave > wouldn't be able to change it, ever. If a dependent open source > project relies on some libdrm interface, that interface is set in > stone. So AMD wouldn't be able to change it either. Unfortunately, > such an open source project doesn't exist, so the community can assume > that this libdrm code is still in the "initial design phase". Dave has > an upper hand here, because he actually has an open source project > that will use this, while AMD doesn't (yet). However, AMD can still > negotiate some details here, i.e. do a proper review. Fully agreed, that's why there was this "internal" qualifier. If you do this internally, then it's not final, if you discuss it here on the m-l, it actually matters. So drag your internal teams into the public, and it's all fine. -Daniel > > Marek > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Christian König > wrote: > > Am 14.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Harry Wentland: > >> > >> On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: > > Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: > >>> > >>> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I > send out > our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? > >>> > >>> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of > >>> direct review. > >>> > >>> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he > >>> thinks this should > >>> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, > >>> so I just adapted > >>> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd > >>> specific code > >>> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as > >>> an rfc, as I want > >>> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may > >>> end up going > >>> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad > >>> idea, so far it > >>> doesn't look like one. > >>> > >>> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the > >>> wait/signal > >>> interfaces, > >>> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was > >>> in > >>> there I re > >>> wrote that as well. > >> > >> Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this > >> implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they > >> could > >> need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. > > > > This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream > > first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff > > like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary > > internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of > > experience > > implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature > > development > > here at intel. > > > "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" > > Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? > >>> > >>> I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) > >>> > >> > >> I'd wear it to the office. > >> > >> https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg > > > > > > I'm only at an AMD office every few years, so that's probably not worth it. > > > > Anyway it's really something we should keep in mind if we want to upstream > > things. > > > > Christian. > > > > > >> > >> Harry > >> > >>> David Zhou > > > Christian. > > > -Daniel > > > > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> amd-gfx mailing list > >>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx > > > > > > > > ___ > > amd-gfx mailing list > > amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
While it's nice that you are all having fun here, I don't think that's the way to communicate this. The truth is, if AMD had an open source driver using the semaphores (e.g. Vulkan) and if the libdrm semaphore code was merged, Dave wouldn't be able to change it, ever. If a dependent open source project relies on some libdrm interface, that interface is set in stone. So AMD wouldn't be able to change it either. Unfortunately, such an open source project doesn't exist, so the community can assume that this libdrm code is still in the "initial design phase". Dave has an upper hand here, because he actually has an open source project that will use this, while AMD doesn't (yet). However, AMD can still negotiate some details here, i.e. do a proper review. Marek On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Christian König wrote: > Am 14.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Harry Wentland: >> >> On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: >>> >>> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? >>> >>> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of >>> direct review. >>> >>> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he >>> thinks this should >>> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, >>> so I just adapted >>> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd >>> specific code >>> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as >>> an rfc, as I want >>> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may >>> end up going >>> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad >>> idea, so far it >>> doesn't look like one. >>> >>> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the >>> wait/signal >>> interfaces, >>> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was >>> in >>> there I re >>> wrote that as well. >> >> Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this >> implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they >> could >> need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. > > This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream > first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff > like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary > internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of > experience > implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature > development > here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? >>> >>> I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) >>> >> >> I'd wear it to the office. >> >> https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg > > > I'm only at an AMD office every few years, so that's probably not worth it. > > Anyway it's really something we should keep in mind if we want to upstream > things. > > Christian. > > >> >> Harry >> >>> David Zhou Christian. > -Daniel >>> >>> ___ >>> amd-gfx mailing list >>> amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx > > > > ___ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Am 14.03.2017 um 18:45 schrieb Harry Wentland: On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) I'd wear it to the office. https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg I'm only at an AMD office every few years, so that's probably not worth it. Anyway it's really something we should keep in mind if we want to upstream things. Christian. Harry David Zhou Christian. -Daniel ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Harry Wentland wrote: >>> "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" >>> >>> Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? >> >> I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) >> > > I'd wear it to the office. > > https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg Can we have a picture of the entire amd team wearing these? :-) Anyway, I approve. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On 2017-03-14 06:04 AM, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) I'd wear it to the office. https://www.customink.com/lab?cid=hkp0-00ay-6vjg Harry David Zhou Christian. -Daniel ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On 2017年03月14日 17:20, Christian König wrote: Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? I guess you cannot dress it to go to office..:) David Zhou Christian. -Daniel ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. "internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that" Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it? Christian. -Daniel ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:16:11PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 13:30, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > > > > On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: > >> > >> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Dave, > >>> > >>> Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send > >>> out > >>> our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? > >> > >> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of > >> direct review. > >> > >> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he > >> thinks this should > >> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, > >> so I just adapted > >> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd > >> specific code > >> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as > >> an rfc, as I want > >> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may > >> end up going > >> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad > >> idea, so far it > >> doesn't look like one. > >> > >> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal > >> interfaces, > >> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in > >> there I re > >> wrote that as well. > > > > Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this > > implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could > > need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. > > This is unfortunate, but the more internal development done, the more > this will happen, > especially in areas where you might interact with the kernel. I'd > suggest trying to > develop stuff in the open much earlier (don't start anything in-house). > > Now that we have an open vulkan driver it might be that most features > the internal > vulkan driver requires will eventually be wanted by us, Yeah that's another aspect, radv is the open vulkan driver for amd hw, which means it gets to drive uapi. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: > > On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out > > > our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? > > This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of > > direct review. > > > > The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he > > thinks this should > > use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, > > so I just adapted > > the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd > > specific code > > for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as > > an rfc, as I want > > to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may > > end up going > > back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad > > idea, so far it > > doesn't look like one. > > > > I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal > > interfaces, > > that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in > > there I re > > wrote that as well. > Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this > implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could > need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development here at intel. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On 14 March 2017 at 13:30, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send >>> out >>> our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? >> >> This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of >> direct review. >> >> The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he >> thinks this should >> use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, >> so I just adapted >> the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd >> specific code >> for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as >> an rfc, as I want >> to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may >> end up going >> back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad >> idea, so far it >> doesn't look like one. >> >> I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal >> interfaces, >> that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in >> there I re >> wrote that as well. > > Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this > implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could > need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. This is unfortunate, but the more internal development done, the more this will happen, especially in areas where you might interact with the kernel. I'd suggest trying to develop stuff in the open much earlier (don't start anything in-house). Now that we have an open vulkan driver it might be that most features the internal vulkan driver requires will eventually be wanted by us, Dave. ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote: On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: Hi Dave, Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this. Regards, David Zhou Dave. ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out > our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches? This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of direct review. The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he thinks this should use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible, so I just adapted the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd specific code for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as an rfc, as I want to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may end up going back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad idea, so far it doesn't look like one. I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal interfaces, that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in there I re wrote that as well. Dave. ___ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
Hi Dave,
Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send
out our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches?
Thanks,
David Zhou
On 2017年03月14日 08:50, Dave Airlie wrote:
From: Dave Airlie
This adds the corresponding code for libdrm to use the new
kernel interfaces for semaphores.
This will be used by radv to implement shared semaphores.
TODO: Version checks.
Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie
---
amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 28 +
amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 161 ---
include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 28 +
3 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
index 7b26a04..747e248 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
@@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ typedef struct amdgpu_va *amdgpu_va_handle;
*/
typedef struct amdgpu_semaphore *amdgpu_semaphore_handle;
+typedef uint32_t amdgpu_sem_handle;
+
/*--*/
/* -- Structures -- */
/*--*/
@@ -365,6 +367,16 @@ struct amdgpu_cs_request {
struct amdgpu_cs_fence_info fence_info;
};
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem {
+ /*
+*
+*/
+ uint32_t number_of_wait_sem;
+ uint32_t *wait_sems;
+ uint32_t number_of_signal_sem;
+ uint32_t *signal_sems;
+};
+
/**
* Structure which provide information about GPU VM MC Address space
* alignments requirements
@@ -882,6 +894,12 @@ int amdgpu_cs_submit(amdgpu_context_handle context,
struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
uint32_t number_of_requests);
+int amdgpu_cs_submit_sem(amdgpu_context_handle context,
+uint64_t flags,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *ibs_sem,
+uint32_t number_of_requests);
+
/**
* Query status of Command Buffer Submission
*
@@ -1255,4 +1273,14 @@ int amdgpu_cs_destroy_semaphore(amdgpu_semaphore_handle
sem);
*/
const char *amdgpu_get_marketing_name(amdgpu_device_handle dev);
+int amdgpu_cs_create_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_export_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem,
+int *shared_handle);
+int amdgpu_cs_import_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ int shared_handle,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_destroy_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem);
#endif /* #ifdef _AMDGPU_H_ */
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
index fb5b3a8..7283327 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ int amdgpu_cs_query_reset_state(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
* \sa amdgpu_cs_submit()
*/
static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle context,
- struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request)
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *sem_request)
{
union drm_amdgpu_cs cs;
uint64_t *chunk_array;
@@ -178,9 +179,11 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_data *chunk_data;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *dependencies = NULL;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *wait_sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *signal_sem_dependencies = NULL;
struct list_head *sem_list;
amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem, tmp;
- uint32_t i, size, sem_count = 0;
+ uint32_t i, j, size, sem_count = 0;
bool user_fence;
int r = 0;
@@ -196,7 +199,7 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle context,
}
user_fence = (ibs_request->fence_info.handle != NULL);
- size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1;
+ size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1 +
(sem_request ? 2 : 0);
chunk_array = alloca(sizeof(uint64_t) * size);
chunks = alloca(sizeof(struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk) * size);
@@ -308,6 +311,45 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
chunks[i].chunk_data = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)sem_dependencies;
}
+ if (sem_request) {
+ if (sem_request->number_of_wait_sem) {
+ wait_sem_dependencies = malloc(sizeof(struct
drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem) * sem_request->number_of_wait_sem);
+ if (!wait_sem_dependencies) {
+ r = -ENOMEM;
+
[PATCH libdrm] libdrm/amdgpu: add interface for kernel semaphores
From: Dave Airlie
This adds the corresponding code for libdrm to use the new
kernel interfaces for semaphores.
This will be used by radv to implement shared semaphores.
TODO: Version checks.
Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie
---
amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 28 +
amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 161 ---
include/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 28 +
3 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
index 7b26a04..747e248 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
@@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ typedef struct amdgpu_va *amdgpu_va_handle;
*/
typedef struct amdgpu_semaphore *amdgpu_semaphore_handle;
+typedef uint32_t amdgpu_sem_handle;
+
/*--*/
/* -- Structures -- */
/*--*/
@@ -365,6 +367,16 @@ struct amdgpu_cs_request {
struct amdgpu_cs_fence_info fence_info;
};
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem {
+ /*
+*
+*/
+ uint32_t number_of_wait_sem;
+ uint32_t *wait_sems;
+ uint32_t number_of_signal_sem;
+ uint32_t *signal_sems;
+};
+
/**
* Structure which provide information about GPU VM MC Address space
* alignments requirements
@@ -882,6 +894,12 @@ int amdgpu_cs_submit(amdgpu_context_handle context,
struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
uint32_t number_of_requests);
+int amdgpu_cs_submit_sem(amdgpu_context_handle context,
+uint64_t flags,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *ibs_sem,
+uint32_t number_of_requests);
+
/**
* Query status of Command Buffer Submission
*
@@ -1255,4 +1273,14 @@ int amdgpu_cs_destroy_semaphore(amdgpu_semaphore_handle
sem);
*/
const char *amdgpu_get_marketing_name(amdgpu_device_handle dev);
+int amdgpu_cs_create_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_export_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem,
+int *shared_handle);
+int amdgpu_cs_import_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ int shared_handle,
+amdgpu_sem_handle *sem);
+int amdgpu_cs_destroy_sem(amdgpu_device_handle dev,
+ amdgpu_sem_handle sem);
#endif /* #ifdef _AMDGPU_H_ */
diff --git a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
index fb5b3a8..7283327 100644
--- a/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
+++ b/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@ int amdgpu_cs_query_reset_state(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
* \sa amdgpu_cs_submit()
*/
static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle context,
- struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request)
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request *ibs_request,
+ struct amdgpu_cs_request_sem *sem_request)
{
union drm_amdgpu_cs cs;
uint64_t *chunk_array;
@@ -178,9 +179,11 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_data *chunk_data;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *dependencies = NULL;
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_dep *sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *wait_sem_dependencies = NULL;
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *signal_sem_dependencies = NULL;
struct list_head *sem_list;
amdgpu_semaphore_handle sem, tmp;
- uint32_t i, size, sem_count = 0;
+ uint32_t i, j, size, sem_count = 0;
bool user_fence;
int r = 0;
@@ -196,7 +199,7 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
}
user_fence = (ibs_request->fence_info.handle != NULL);
- size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1;
+ size = ibs_request->number_of_ibs + (user_fence ? 2 : 1) + 1 +
(sem_request ? 2 : 0);
chunk_array = alloca(sizeof(uint64_t) * size);
chunks = alloca(sizeof(struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk) * size);
@@ -308,6 +311,45 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_submit_one(amdgpu_context_handle
context,
chunks[i].chunk_data = (uint64_t)(uintptr_t)sem_dependencies;
}
+ if (sem_request) {
+ if (sem_request->number_of_wait_sem) {
+ wait_sem_dependencies = malloc(sizeof(struct
drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem) * sem_request->number_of_wait_sem);
+ if (!wait_sem_dependencies) {
+ r = -ENOMEM;
+ goto error_unlock;
+ }
+ for (j = 0; j < sem_request->number_of_wait_sem; j++) {
+ struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk_sem *dep =
&wait_sem_dependencies[
