Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/doc/rfc: Mark DRM_VM_BIND as complete.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:32:30PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > Hi Rodrigo, > > On 8/31/23 21:10, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with > > > the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged > > > upstream. > > > > > > The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall > > > rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers. > > > > Danilo, do you agree with this? > > if nothing is missing on that front, could you please ack this patch? > > I agree with the above, hence: > > Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich > > However, the documentation below seems to be more about a common DRM_VM_BIND > IOCTL? > I guess your commit refers to the end where it talks about common VM_BIND > helpers. Yes, it was about a common vm_bind helpers. But if the consensus is to go with the individual drivers vm_bind uapis with common gpu_va, this common drm_vm_bind talk makes no sense anymore. So we can end the talks about it. > > Otherwise the patch is moving the "DRM_VM_BIND" paragraph somewhere below the > "Dev_coredump"paragraph. Is there some kind of "Done-Section" I'm missing? Yes, it moves to a new +Xe – Pre-Merge Goals - Completed + added on patch 2 with devcoredump: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230829163005.54067-2-rodrigo.v...@intel.com/ > > - Danilo > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi > > > --- > > > Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +- > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > > > @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block > > > Xe and any needed GPUVA > > > related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by > > > maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next. > > > -DRM_VM_BIND > > > > > > -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in > > > order to > > > -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked > > > on the > > > -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team > > > needs to > > > -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > > > - > > > -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in > > > this file > > > -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent > > > drivers > > > -vm_bind ioctls. > > > - > > > -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a > > > requirement to get > > > -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all > > > major > > > -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and > > > possibly some > > > -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in > > > this > > > -document. > > > - > > > ASYNC VM_BIND > > > - > > > Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a > > > requirement to get > > > @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to > > > collaborate with devcoredump > > > infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file > > > support > > > for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra > > > print, > > > and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure. > > > + > > > +DRM_VM_BIND > > > +--- > > > +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in > > > order to > > > +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked > > > on the > > > +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team > > > needs to > > > +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > > > + > > > +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in > > > this file > > > +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent > > > drivers > > > +vm_bind ioctls. > > > + > > > +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a > > > requirement to get > > > +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all > > > major > > > +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and > > > possibly some > > > +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in > > > this > > > +document. > > > -- > > > 2.41.0 > > > > > >
Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/doc/rfc: Mark DRM_VM_BIND as complete.
Hi Rodrigo, On 8/31/23 21:10, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged upstream. The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers. Danilo, do you agree with this? if nothing is missing on that front, could you please ack this patch? I agree with the above, hence: Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich However, the documentation below seems to be more about a common DRM_VM_BIND IOCTL? I guess your commit refers to the end where it talks about common VM_BIND helpers. Otherwise the patch is moving the "DRM_VM_BIND" paragraph somewhere below the "Dev_coredump"paragraph. Is there some kind of "Done-Section" I'm missing? - Danilo Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644 --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe and any needed GPUVA related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next. -DRM_VM_BIND -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. - -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers -vm_bind ioctls. - -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this -document. - ASYNC VM_BIND - Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to collaborate with devcoredump infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file support for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra print, and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure. + +DRM_VM_BIND +--- +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. + +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers +vm_bind ioctls. + +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this +document. -- 2.41.0
Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/doc/rfc: Mark DRM_VM_BIND as complete.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with > the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged > upstream. > > The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall > rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers. Danilo, do you agree with this? if nothing is missing on that front, could you please ack this patch? > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi > --- > Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst > @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe > and any needed GPUVA > related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by > maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next. > > -DRM_VM_BIND > > -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order > to > -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the > -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to > -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > - > -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this > file > -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent > drivers > -vm_bind ioctls. > - > -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to > get > -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all > major > -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly > some > -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this > -document. > - > ASYNC VM_BIND > - > Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to > get > @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to collaborate > with devcoredump > infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file support > for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra print, > and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure. > + > +DRM_VM_BIND > +--- > +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order > to > +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the > +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to > +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. > + > +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this > file > +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent > drivers > +vm_bind ioctls. > + > +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to > get > +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all > major > +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly > some > +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this > +document. > -- > 2.41.0 >
[PATCH 3/4] drm/doc/rfc: Mark DRM_VM_BIND as complete.
The consensus is for individual drivers VM_BIND uapis with the GPUVA helpers that are already implemented and merged upstream. The merged GPUVA documentation also establish some overall rules for the locking to be followed by the drivers. Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi --- Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst | 34 +- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst index bf60c5c82d0e..a115526c03e0 100644 --- a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst +++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/xe.rst @@ -106,23 +106,6 @@ our tree. Missing Nouveau patches should *not* block Xe and any needed GPUVA related patch should be independent and present on dri-devel or acked by maintainers to go along with the first Xe pull request towards drm-next. -DRM_VM_BIND -Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to -fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the -development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to -engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. - -As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file -below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers -vm_bind ioctls. - -Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get -Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major -structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some -common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this -document. - ASYNC VM_BIND - Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get @@ -230,3 +213,20 @@ Later, when we are in-tree, the goal is to collaborate with devcoredump infrastructure with overall possible improvements, like multiple file support for better organization of the dumps, snapshot support, dmesg extra print, and whatever may make sense and help the overall infrastructure. + +DRM_VM_BIND +--- +Nouveau, and Xe are all implementing ‘VM_BIND’ and new ‘Exec’ uAPIs in order to +fulfill the needs of the modern uAPI. Xe merge should *not* be blocked on the +development of a common new drm_infrastructure. However, the Xe team needs to +engage with the community to explore the options of a common API. + +As a key measurable result, the DRM_VM_BIND needs to be documented in this file +below, or this entire block deleted if the consensus is for independent drivers +vm_bind ioctls. + +Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get +Xe merged, it is mandatory to enforce the overall locking scheme for all major +structs and list (so vm and vma). So, a consensus is needed, and possibly some +common helpers. If helpers are needed, they should be also documented in this +document. -- 2.41.0
