All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] drm/i915/xehp: Drop GETPARAM lookups of I915_PARAM_[SUB]SLICE_MASK
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:51:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1870635b-c8d0-c7e4-1e0f-78207a60cfaf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yof9PwfBVpWnMqIn@mdroper-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>


On 20/05/2022 21:42, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:15:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 17/05/2022 04:20, Matt Roper wrote:
>>> Slice/subslice/EU information should be obtained via the topology
>>> queries provided by the I915_QUERY interface; let's turn off support for
>>> the old GETPARAM lookups on Xe_HP and beyond where we can't return
>>> meaningful values.
>>>
>>> The slice mask lookup is meaningless since Xe_HP doesn't support
>>> traditional slices (and we make no attempt to return the various new
>>> units like gslices, cslices, mslices, etc.) here.
>>>
>>> The subslice mask lookup is even more problematic; given the distinct
>>> masks for geometry vs compute purposes, the combined mask returned here
>>> is likely not what userspace would want to act upon anyway.  The value
>>> is also limited to 32-bits by the nature of the GETPARAM ioctl which is
>>> sufficient for the initial Xe_HP platforms, but is unable to convey the
>>> larger masks that will be needed on other upcoming platforms.  Finally,
>>> the value returned here becomes even less meaningful when used on
>>> multi-tile platforms where each tile will have its own masks.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> index c12a0adefda5..ac9767c56619 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> @@ -148,11 +148,19 @@ int i915_getparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>    		value = intel_engines_has_context_isolation(i915);
>>>    		break;
>>>    	case I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK:
>>> +		/* Not supported from Xe_HP onward; use topology queries */
>>> +		if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 50))
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>    		value = sseu->slice_mask;
>>>    		if (!value)
>>>    			return -ENODEV;
>>>    		break;
>>>    	case I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK:
>>> +		/* Not supported from Xe_HP onward; use topology queries */
>>> +		if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 50))
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>    		/* Only copy bits from the first slice */
>>>    		memcpy(&value, sseu->subslice_mask,
>>>    		       min(sseu->ss_stride, (u8)sizeof(value)));
>>
>> Just in case lets run this by Jordan and Lionel since it affects DG2. Anyone
>> else on the userspace side who might be affected?
> 
> When I grep'd Mesa, I found two uses of I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK and
> I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK:
> 
>   * oa_metrics_kernel_support:  The topology query is used on gen10+ so
>     the getparam code is only called on gen9 and below
> 
>   * getparam_topology:  Invoked via intel_get_device_info_from_fd().  The
>     topology query is attempted first.  Only if that fails _and_ we're on
>     a pre-gen10 platform does it fall back to GETPARAM.
> 
> I also checked https://github.com/intel/compute-runtime and only see
> these being issued in one place:
> 
>   * HwInfoConfig::configureHwInfoDrm:  Only used if drm->queryTopology()
>     returns a failure first.
> 
> 
> I think those are the only relevant userspace for SSEU topology, so as
> far as I can tell nobody is still relying on the legacy getparams by the
> time we get to Xe_HP hardware.

Sounds good to me - I also had a look at the media and compute drivers 
and couldn't find any use. However I still think it is best if UMD teams 
would ack this patch.

Regards,

Tvrtko

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/6] drm/i915/xehp: Drop GETPARAM lookups of I915_PARAM_[SUB]SLICE_MASK
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:51:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1870635b-c8d0-c7e4-1e0f-78207a60cfaf@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yof9PwfBVpWnMqIn@mdroper-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>


On 20/05/2022 21:42, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:15:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 17/05/2022 04:20, Matt Roper wrote:
>>> Slice/subslice/EU information should be obtained via the topology
>>> queries provided by the I915_QUERY interface; let's turn off support for
>>> the old GETPARAM lookups on Xe_HP and beyond where we can't return
>>> meaningful values.
>>>
>>> The slice mask lookup is meaningless since Xe_HP doesn't support
>>> traditional slices (and we make no attempt to return the various new
>>> units like gslices, cslices, mslices, etc.) here.
>>>
>>> The subslice mask lookup is even more problematic; given the distinct
>>> masks for geometry vs compute purposes, the combined mask returned here
>>> is likely not what userspace would want to act upon anyway.  The value
>>> is also limited to 32-bits by the nature of the GETPARAM ioctl which is
>>> sufficient for the initial Xe_HP platforms, but is unable to convey the
>>> larger masks that will be needed on other upcoming platforms.  Finally,
>>> the value returned here becomes even less meaningful when used on
>>> multi-tile platforms where each tile will have its own masks.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> index c12a0adefda5..ac9767c56619 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c
>>> @@ -148,11 +148,19 @@ int i915_getparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>    		value = intel_engines_has_context_isolation(i915);
>>>    		break;
>>>    	case I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK:
>>> +		/* Not supported from Xe_HP onward; use topology queries */
>>> +		if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 50))
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>    		value = sseu->slice_mask;
>>>    		if (!value)
>>>    			return -ENODEV;
>>>    		break;
>>>    	case I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK:
>>> +		/* Not supported from Xe_HP onward; use topology queries */
>>> +		if (GRAPHICS_VER_FULL(i915) >= IP_VER(12, 50))
>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>>    		/* Only copy bits from the first slice */
>>>    		memcpy(&value, sseu->subslice_mask,
>>>    		       min(sseu->ss_stride, (u8)sizeof(value)));
>>
>> Just in case lets run this by Jordan and Lionel since it affects DG2. Anyone
>> else on the userspace side who might be affected?
> 
> When I grep'd Mesa, I found two uses of I915_PARAM_SLICE_MASK and
> I915_PARAM_SUBSLICE_MASK:
> 
>   * oa_metrics_kernel_support:  The topology query is used on gen10+ so
>     the getparam code is only called on gen9 and below
> 
>   * getparam_topology:  Invoked via intel_get_device_info_from_fd().  The
>     topology query is attempted first.  Only if that fails _and_ we're on
>     a pre-gen10 platform does it fall back to GETPARAM.
> 
> I also checked https://github.com/intel/compute-runtime and only see
> these being issued in one place:
> 
>   * HwInfoConfig::configureHwInfoDrm:  Only used if drm->queryTopology()
>     returns a failure first.
> 
> 
> I think those are the only relevant userspace for SSEU topology, so as
> far as I can tell nobody is still relying on the legacy getparams by the
> time we get to Xe_HP hardware.

Sounds good to me - I also had a look at the media and compute drivers 
and couldn't find any use. However I still think it is best if UMD teams 
would ack this patch.

Regards,

Tvrtko

  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-24  8:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-17  3:19 [PATCH v2 0/6] i915: SSEU handling updates Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:19 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] drm/i915/xehp: Use separate sseu init function Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] drm/i915/xehp: Drop GETPARAM lookups of I915_PARAM_[SUB]SLICE_MASK Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-20  9:15   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-20  9:15     ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-20 20:42     ` Matt Roper
2022-05-20 20:42       ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-24  8:51       ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2022-05-24  8:51         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-06-01  5:59   ` Lionel Landwerlin
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] drm/i915/sseu: Simplify gen11+ SSEU handling Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-20  9:21   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-20  9:21     ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] drm/i915/sseu: Don't try to store EU mask internally in UAPI format Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-20  9:32   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-20  9:32     ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] drm/i915/sseu: Disassociate internal subslice mask representation from uapi Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-17 15:15   ` [PATCH v3 " Matt Roper
2022-05-17 15:15     ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-20 10:07     ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-20 10:07       ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2022-05-17  3:20 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] drm/i915/pvc: Add SSEU changes Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:20   ` [Intel-gfx] " Matt Roper
2022-05-17  3:40 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for i915: SSEU handling updates (rev3) Patchwork
2022-05-17  3:40 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-05-17  4:05 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-05-17  6:25 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-05-17 18:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for i915: SSEU handling updates (rev4) Patchwork
2022-05-17 18:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2022-05-17 19:08 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-05-17 19:19   ` Matt Roper
2022-05-17 20:44     ` Vudum, Lakshminarayana
2022-05-17 20:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-05-18  0:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-05-18  3:24   ` Matt Roper
2022-05-18 16:51     ` Vudum, Lakshminarayana
2022-05-18 15:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1870635b-c8d0-c7e4-1e0f-78207a60cfaf@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jordan.l.justen@intel.com \
    --cc=lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.