All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Cc: Egbert Eich <eich@xfree86.org>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@yahoo.com>,
	Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu>,
	kronos@kronoz.cjb.net,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] DRM and pci_driver conversion
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031027154309.GB19711@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200310271537.30435.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 04:37:30PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Saturday 25 October 2003 21:17, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Graphics processors are growing more general, too -- moving towards
> > generic vector/data processing engines.  I bet you'll see an optimal
> > model emerge where you have some sort of "JIT" for GPU microcode in
> > userspace.  Multiple apps pipeline X/GL/hardware commands into the JIT,
> > which in turn pipelines data and microcode commands to the GPU kernel
> > driver.
> 
> These "JIT" is needed also for another reason: 
> 
> 	There are contraints for GPU commands and the pipelines need to
> 	be modelled, like CPU piplines are modelled in a compiler. But
> 	more like the pipelines of some early long instruction word
> 	processors, where issuing to a used pipeline will cause random
> 	behavior and crashes. So the JIT doesn't should also emit
> 	synchronization points. 
> 
> With this JIT in place, there need to be just some hardware description
> files (backends) and some API (GL, DirectX, X) description files
> (frontends).

I agree 60%  ;-)   This JIT emits GPU-specific microcode, so it should
lean towards being hardware-dependent.  Speed and efficiency IMO demand
that.

Looking at existing, open-source CPU JITs, there are certainly general
pieces and CPU-specific pieces.  But for GPUs, I think the best method
is to start at the more-GPU-specific end of the spectrum, and _evolve_
towards a more general solution, as hardware needs dictate.

In other terms, let the hardware drive the JIT design and evolution, and
don't over-design for a future that may never come.  That was part of
GGI's problem, IMO.


> Now we just need some funding for that and the datasheets. Then it's
> doable.

Yep ;-)


> I see just one showstopper: Cheating in benchmarks isn't possible anymore.
> 
> PS: That's basically the GGI approach taken further.

I followed GGI for a while.  Trying to be all things to all people was
their principle mistake.  As Pat Morita said in Karate Kid,
"Focus, Daniel-san!"  Be specific before general.

	Jeff




WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Cc: Egbert Eich <eich@xfree86.org>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@yahoo.com>,
	Eric Anholt <eta@lclark.edu>,
	kronos@kronoz.cjb.net,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Re: DRM and pci_driver conversion
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:43:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031027154309.GB19711@gtf.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200310271537.30435.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 04:37:30PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Saturday 25 October 2003 21:17, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Graphics processors are growing more general, too -- moving towards
> > generic vector/data processing engines.  I bet you'll see an optimal
> > model emerge where you have some sort of "JIT" for GPU microcode in
> > userspace.  Multiple apps pipeline X/GL/hardware commands into the JIT,
> > which in turn pipelines data and microcode commands to the GPU kernel
> > driver.
> 
> These "JIT" is needed also for another reason: 
> 
> 	There are contraints for GPU commands and the pipelines need to
> 	be modelled, like CPU piplines are modelled in a compiler. But
> 	more like the pipelines of some early long instruction word
> 	processors, where issuing to a used pipeline will cause random
> 	behavior and crashes. So the JIT doesn't should also emit
> 	synchronization points. 
> 
> With this JIT in place, there need to be just some hardware description
> files (backends) and some API (GL, DirectX, X) description files
> (frontends).

I agree 60%  ;-)   This JIT emits GPU-specific microcode, so it should
lean towards being hardware-dependent.  Speed and efficiency IMO demand
that.

Looking at existing, open-source CPU JITs, there are certainly general
pieces and CPU-specific pieces.  But for GPUs, I think the best method
is to start at the more-GPU-specific end of the spectrum, and _evolve_
towards a more general solution, as hardware needs dictate.

In other terms, let the hardware drive the JIT design and evolution, and
don't over-design for a future that may never come.  That was part of
GGI's problem, IMO.


> Now we just need some funding for that and the datasheets. Then it's
> doable.

Yep ;-)


> I see just one showstopper: Cheating in benchmarks isn't possible anymore.
> 
> PS: That's basically the GGI approach taken further.

I followed GGI for a while.  Trying to be all things to all people was
their principle mistake.  As Pat Morita said in Karate Kid,
"Focus, Daniel-san!"  Be specific before general.

	Jeff





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: The SF.net Donation Program.
Do you like what SourceForge.net is doing for the Open
Source Community?  Make a contribution, and help us add new
features and functionality. Click here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/

  reply	other threads:[~2003-10-27 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-21  2:31 DRM and pci_driver conversion Eric Anholt
2003-10-23 19:04 ` [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Kronos
2003-10-23 19:04   ` Kronos
2003-10-23 21:10   ` [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Eric Anholt
2003-10-23 21:31     ` Jon Smirl
2003-10-23 23:23       ` [Dri-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2003-10-23 23:23         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-23 23:46         ` Eric Anholt
2003-10-24  1:19         ` Jeff Garzik
2003-10-24  1:19           ` [Dri-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-24  1:52           ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Jon Smirl
2003-10-24  3:47           ` Multiple drivers for same hardware:, was: " Jon Smirl
2003-10-24  3:47             ` Jon Smirl
2003-10-24  4:40             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-24  4:40               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-28 18:00               ` James Simmons
2003-10-28 18:00                 ` James Simmons
2003-10-24 16:44           ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2003-10-24 16:44             ` [Dri-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2003-10-24 16:57             ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Petr Vandrovec
2003-10-24 17:59               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-24 17:59                 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-24 18:34                 ` Jon Smirl
2003-10-24 19:45                   ` Ivan Kokshaysky
2003-10-24 19:45                     ` [Dri-devel] " Ivan Kokshaysky
2003-10-24 19:08               ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Ivan Kokshaysky
2003-10-24 19:08                 ` [Dri-devel] " Ivan Kokshaysky
2003-10-24 17:06             ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-24 17:06               ` [Dri-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-24  1:50         ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Jon Smirl
2003-10-24  1:50           ` [Dri-devel] " Jon Smirl
2003-10-25 17:29         ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Egbert Eich
2003-10-25 17:29           ` [Dri-devel] " Egbert Eich
2003-10-25 18:37           ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Linus Torvalds
2003-10-25 18:37             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-25 19:17             ` Jeff Garzik
2003-10-25 19:17               ` [Dri-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-27 14:37               ` Ingo Oeser
2003-10-27 14:37               ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Ingo Oeser
2003-10-27 15:43                 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2003-10-27 15:43                   ` [Dri-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-28 10:53                   ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Ingo Oeser
2003-10-27 15:14               ` Keith Whitwell
2003-10-27 15:14                 ` [Dri-devel] " Keith Whitwell
2003-10-27 15:38                 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-10-27 15:38                 ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Jeff Garzik
2003-10-27 15:50                   ` [Dri-devel] " Keith Whitwell
2003-10-27 15:50                   ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Keith Whitwell
2003-10-25 21:02             ` Jon Smirl
2003-10-25 21:02               ` [Dri-devel] " Jon Smirl
2003-10-25 22:07             ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-25 22:07               ` [Dri-devel] " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-27 14:01             ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " jlnance
2003-10-27 15:10             ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-27 15:10               ` [Dri-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2003-10-27 15:10             ` [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] " Keith Whitwell
2003-10-27 15:10               ` [Dri-devel] " Keith Whitwell
     [not found]             ` <20031027114006.A66611@xfree86.org>
2003-10-27 19:38               ` Ian Romanick
2003-10-27 21:32                 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-27 23:55                   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-28  2:13                     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-10-28  3:27                       ` Philip Brown
2003-10-28 19:40                       ` James Simmons
2003-10-28 21:35                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-28 22:09                           ` Jon Smirl
2003-10-28 22:26                             ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-28 22:54                         ` Linus Torvalds

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=20031027154309.GB19711@gtf.org \
    --to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=eich@xfree86.org \
    --cc=eta@lclark.edu \
    --cc=ioe-lkml@rameria.de \
    --cc=jonsmirl@yahoo.com \
    --cc=kronos@kronoz.cjb.net \
    --cc=linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /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.