Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
On 24/11/2021 18:07, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 08:45:50AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 24/11/2021 08:04, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:49:04AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 22/11/2021 19:13, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object settings. Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: 1. IGT 2. Mesa 3. Media-Driver 4. NEO 5. libdrm 6. xf86-intel-video I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm my analysis. 1. IGT: We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != 0. What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). 2. Mesa: gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses softpinning only with alignment handled by allocator, so drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 alignment field == 0. drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings to value != 0. vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. 3. Media-Driver: It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical usage of this function externally (using mos_bo_alloc_for_render() wrapper). There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() but it doesn't use alignment. 4. NEO: Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; 5. libdrm: Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). 6. xf86-intel-video: src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this shouldn't be a problem. You also need to figure out not only what codebase currently uses this, but what maybe has an older version in the field which used to, right? Otherwise kernel upgrade can break someones old userspace which is not allowed. Just raising this for consideration if it isn't already on your radar. Do you mean should I for example check each Ubuntu LTS (14.04, 16.04 and so on), find commit id used to build above and examine above source code again? And also do this for other distros? I think from another direction, for each of the above listed libraries see in their git history (inputs from owners should help) if they ever used non-zero alignment and if they have map it to released versions. Then see is those released versions shipped in any distro, maybe via distro watch, if they have a database going far enough. I don't know what would be the best plan of looking through codebase history. Maybe git log -S/-G with strings which would catch assignemnts to alignments, or passing in those parameters? Or just git log at first instance. In the ideal world each userspace library above can say they never ever used it and then it's simpler. Unless there is some obscure thing linking directly to libdrm out in the wild? Maybe check distro packages to see all that depend on it. Thanks for hints, you're right. I should walk over rev-list history and find any problematic code. Problematic I mean direct obj alignment setting or usage of libdrm bo_alloc_for_render() where alignment can be passed as an argument. I've missed UXA also uses libdrm and bo_alloc_for_render() but alignment was set to 0 in whole history so this driver shouldn't be a problem. If anyone knows which project would directly use libdrm with intel bo bufmgr I would appreciate. -- Zbigniew I performed some code archaeology across the various userland projects. See below for notes on each project. From what I could find, there appears to be only 1 historical use of alignment != 0: mesa intel winsys driver used 4K alignments from 2012-2017, but was only actullay passed through from 2015-2017. Only gallium ilo driver appeared to ever use it. Given this, we could either not care about that and go ahead with the
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 08:45:50AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 24/11/2021 08:04, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:49:04AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > On 22/11/2021 19:13, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: > > > > In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object > > > > settings. > > > > > > > > Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use > > > > this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: > > > > > > > > 1. IGT > > > > 2. Mesa > > > > 3. Media-Driver > > > > 4. NEO > > > > 5. libdrm > > > > 6. xf86-intel-video > > > > > > > > I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm > > > > my analysis. > > > > > > > > 1. IGT: > > > > We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != > > > > 0. > > > > What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due > > > > to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). > > > > > > > > 2. Mesa: > > > > gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses > > > > softpinning > > > > only with alignment handled by allocator, so > > > > drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 > > > > alignment field == 0. > > > > > > > > drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but > > > > it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings > > > > to value != 0. > > > > > > > > vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are > > > > initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field > > > > is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan > > > > driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. > > > > > > > > 3. Media-Driver: > > > > It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do > > > > allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): > > > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok > > > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() > > > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from > > > >the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical > > > >usage of this function externally (using > > > > mos_bo_alloc_for_render() > > > >wrapper). > > > > There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() > > > > but it doesn't use alignment. > > > > > > > > 4. NEO: > > > > Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: > > > > source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: > > > > void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; > > > > > > > > 5. libdrm: > > > > Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: > > > > drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), > > > > drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). > > > > Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() > > > > so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment > > > > passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). > > > > > > > > 6. xf86-intel-video: > > > > src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this > > > > shouldn't be a problem. > > > > > > You also need to figure out not only what codebase currently uses this, > > > but > > > what maybe has an older version in the field which used to, right? > > > Otherwise > > > kernel upgrade can break someones old userspace which is not allowed. Just > > > raising this for consideration if it isn't already on your radar. > > > > > > > Do you mean should I for example check each Ubuntu LTS (14.04, 16.04 and so > > on), > > find commit id used to build above and examine above source code again? And > > also > > do this for other distros? > > I think from another direction, for each of the above listed libraries see > in their git history (inputs from owners should help) if they ever used > non-zero alignment and if they have map it to released versions. Then see is > those released versions shipped in any distro, maybe via distro watch, if > they have a database going far enough. > > I don't know what would be the best plan of looking through codebase > history. Maybe git log -S/-G with strings which would catch assignemnts to > alignments, or passing in those parameters? Or just git log at first > instance. > > In the ideal world each userspace library above can say they never ever used > it and then it's simpler. Unless there is some obscure thing linking > directly to libdrm out in the wild? Maybe check distro packages to see all > that depend on it. Thanks for hints, you're right. I should walk over rev-list history and find any problematic code. Problematic I mean direct obj alignment setting or usage of libdrm bo_alloc_for_render() where alignment can be passed as an argument. I've missed UXA also uses libdrm and bo_alloc_for_render() but alignment was set to 0 in whole history so this driver
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
On 24/11/2021 08:04, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:49:04AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 22/11/2021 19:13, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object settings. Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: 1. IGT 2. Mesa 3. Media-Driver 4. NEO 5. libdrm 6. xf86-intel-video I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm my analysis. 1. IGT: We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != 0. What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). 2. Mesa: gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses softpinning only with alignment handled by allocator, so drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 alignment field == 0. drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings to value != 0. vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. 3. Media-Driver: It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical usage of this function externally (using mos_bo_alloc_for_render() wrapper). There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() but it doesn't use alignment. 4. NEO: Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; 5. libdrm: Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). 6. xf86-intel-video: src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this shouldn't be a problem. You also need to figure out not only what codebase currently uses this, but what maybe has an older version in the field which used to, right? Otherwise kernel upgrade can break someones old userspace which is not allowed. Just raising this for consideration if it isn't already on your radar. Do you mean should I for example check each Ubuntu LTS (14.04, 16.04 and so on), find commit id used to build above and examine above source code again? And also do this for other distros? I think from another direction, for each of the above listed libraries see in their git history (inputs from owners should help) if they ever used non-zero alignment and if they have map it to released versions. Then see is those released versions shipped in any distro, maybe via distro watch, if they have a database going far enough. I don't know what would be the best plan of looking through codebase history. Maybe git log -S/-G with strings which would catch assignemnts to alignments, or passing in those parameters? Or just git log at first instance. In the ideal world each userspace library above can say they never ever used it and then it's simpler. Unless there is some obscure thing linking directly to libdrm out in the wild? Maybe check distro packages to see all that depend on it. Regards, Tvrtko
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 09:49:04AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 22/11/2021 19:13, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: > > In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object > > settings. > > > > Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use > > this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: > > > > 1. IGT > > 2. Mesa > > 3. Media-Driver > > 4. NEO > > 5. libdrm > > 6. xf86-intel-video > > > > I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm > > my analysis. > > > > 1. IGT: > > We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != 0. > > What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due > > to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). > > > > 2. Mesa: > > gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses softpinning > > only with alignment handled by allocator, so drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 > > alignment field == 0. > > > > drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but > > it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings > > to value != 0. > > > > vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are > > initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field > > is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan > > driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. > > > > 3. Media-Driver: > > It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do > > allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() > > - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from > > the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical > > usage of this function externally (using mos_bo_alloc_for_render() > > wrapper). > > There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() > > but it doesn't use alignment. > > > > 4. NEO: > > Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: > > source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: > > void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; > > > > 5. libdrm: > > Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: > > drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), > > drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). > > Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() > > so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment > > passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). > > > > 6. xf86-intel-video: > > src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this > > shouldn't be a problem. > > You also need to figure out not only what codebase currently uses this, but > what maybe has an older version in the field which used to, right? Otherwise > kernel upgrade can break someones old userspace which is not allowed. Just > raising this for consideration if it isn't already on your radar. > Do you mean should I for example check each Ubuntu LTS (14.04, 16.04 and so on), find commit id used to build above and examine above source code again? And also do this for other distros? -- Zbigniew > Regards, > > Tvrtko > > > > > > > Cc: Petri Latvala > > Cc: Jason Ekstrand > > Cc: Dmitry Rogozhkin > > Cc: Michal Mrozek > > Cc: José Roberto de Souza > > Cc: Chris Wilson > > Cc: Daniel Vetter > > > > Zbigniew Kempczyński (1): > >i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer: Disallow passing alignment > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 11 +++ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > >
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
On 22/11/2021 19:13, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object settings. Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: 1. IGT 2. Mesa 3. Media-Driver 4. NEO 5. libdrm 6. xf86-intel-video I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm my analysis. 1. IGT: We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != 0. What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). 2. Mesa: gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses softpinning only with alignment handled by allocator, so drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 alignment field == 0. drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings to value != 0. vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. 3. Media-Driver: It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical usage of this function externally (using mos_bo_alloc_for_render() wrapper). There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() but it doesn't use alignment. 4. NEO: Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; 5. libdrm: Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). 6. xf86-intel-video: src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this shouldn't be a problem. You also need to figure out not only what codebase currently uses this, but what maybe has an older version in the field which used to, right? Otherwise kernel upgrade can break someones old userspace which is not allowed. Just raising this for consideration if it isn't already on your radar. Regards, Tvrtko Cc: Petri Latvala Cc: Jason Ekstrand Cc: Dmitry Rogozhkin Cc: Michal Mrozek Cc: José Roberto de Souza Cc: Chris Wilson Cc: Daniel Vetter Zbigniew Kempczyński (1): i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer: Disallow passing alignment drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/1] Ensure zero alignment on gens < 4
In short - we want to enforce alignment == 0 for gen4+ GEM object settings. Before we merge this we need to inspect all UMD we expect can use this. My investigation was narrowed to UMD code: 1. IGT 2. Mesa 3. Media-Driver 4. NEO 5. libdrm 6. xf86-intel-video I would like to ask subsystem developers / maintainers to confirm my analysis. 1. IGT: We've already removed / fixed most of the code where alignment != 0. What left was few multi-card subtests I'm not able to rewrite due to lack of such hw (nv + intel on the board). 2. Mesa: gallium/drivers/iris/iris_batch.c,iris_bufmgr.c - it uses softpinning only with alignment handled by allocator, so drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 alignment field == 0. drivers/dri/i965/brw_batch.c,brw_screen.c - it uses relocations but it is supported by allocator, there're no direct alignment settings to value != 0. vulcan/anv_batch_chain.c: drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 objects are initialized within anv_execbuf_add_bo() and .alignment field is set to 0 there. There's no other place where I've found vulcan driver touches it both for softpinning / relocations. 3. Media-Driver: It contains modified libdrm code and three functions which do allocations, all of them uses mos_gem_bo_alloc_internal(): - mos_gem_bo_alloc() - internally uses alignment == 0, that's ok - mos_gem_bo_alloc_tiled() - same as mos_gem_bo_alloc() - mos_gem_bo_alloc_for_render() - this one passes alignment from the caller and it may be != 0. But I haven't found practical usage of this function externally (using mos_bo_alloc_for_render() wrapper). There's another userptr allocation function: mos_bo_alloc_userptr() but it doesn't use alignment. 4. NEO: Uses softpinning only with alignment == 0: source/os_interface/linux/drm_buffer_object.cpp: void BufferObject::fillExecObject() has execObject.alignment = 0; 5. libdrm: Corresponding functions to Media-Driver: drm_intel_bo_alloc(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render(), drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr() and drm_intel_bo_alloc_tiled(). Alignment field is used in drm_intel_bo_alloc_for_render() so couple not rewritten IGTs may encounter issue here (alignment passed in IGTs which still uses libdrm == 4096). 6. xf86-intel-video: src/sna/kgem.c: _kgem_submit() - alignment is set to 0 so this shouldn't be a problem. Cc: Petri Latvala Cc: Jason Ekstrand Cc: Dmitry Rogozhkin Cc: Michal Mrozek Cc: José Roberto de Souza Cc: Chris Wilson Cc: Daniel Vetter Zbigniew Kempczyński (1): i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer: Disallow passing alignment drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 11 +++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) -- 2.26.0
