drm/doc/rfc: Remove Xe's pre-merge plan
The last TODO item here that was not marked as done was the display portion, which came along with the pull-request. So, now that Xe is part of drm-next and it includes the display portion, let's entirely kill this RFC here. Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> Cc: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240110190427.63095-1-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com Acked-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
Rodrigo Vivi
parent
5465b0a591
commit
d11dc7aa98
@ -1,234 +0,0 @@
|
||||
==========================
|
||||
Xe – Merge Acceptance Plan
|
||||
==========================
|
||||
Xe is a new driver for Intel GPUs that supports both integrated and
|
||||
discrete platforms starting with Tiger Lake (first Intel Xe Architecture).
|
||||
|
||||
This document aims to establish a merge plan for the Xe, by writing down clear
|
||||
pre-merge goals, in order to avoid unnecessary delays.
|
||||
|
||||
Xe – Overview
|
||||
=============
|
||||
The main motivation of Xe is to have a fresh base to work from that is
|
||||
unencumbered by older platforms, whilst also taking the opportunity to
|
||||
rearchitect our driver to increase sharing across the drm subsystem, both
|
||||
leveraging and allowing us to contribute more towards other shared components
|
||||
like TTM and drm/scheduler.
|
||||
|
||||
This is also an opportunity to start from the beginning with a clean uAPI that is
|
||||
extensible by design and already aligned with the modern userspace needs. For
|
||||
this reason, the memory model is solely based on GPU Virtual Address space
|
||||
bind/unbind (‘VM_BIND’) of GEM buffer objects (BOs) and execution only supporting
|
||||
explicit synchronization. With persistent mapping across the execution, the
|
||||
userspace does not need to provide a list of all required mappings during each
|
||||
submission.
|
||||
|
||||
The new driver leverages a lot from i915. As for display, the intent is to share
|
||||
the display code with the i915 driver so that there is maximum reuse there.
|
||||
|
||||
As for the power management area, the goal is to have a much-simplified support
|
||||
for the system suspend states (S-states), PCI device suspend states (D-states),
|
||||
GPU/Render suspend states (R-states) and frequency management. It should leverage
|
||||
as much as possible all the existent PCI-subsystem infrastructure (pm and
|
||||
runtime_pm) and underlying firmware components such PCODE and GuC for the power
|
||||
states and frequency decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
Repository:
|
||||
|
||||
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel (branch drm-xe-next)
|
||||
|
||||
Xe – Platforms
|
||||
==============
|
||||
Currently, Xe is already functional and has experimental support for multiple
|
||||
platforms starting from Tiger Lake, with initial support in userspace implemented
|
||||
in Mesa (for Iris and Anv, our OpenGL and Vulkan drivers), as well as in NEO
|
||||
(for OpenCL and Level0).
|
||||
|
||||
During a transition period, platforms will be supported by both Xe and i915.
|
||||
However, the force_probe mechanism existent in both drivers will allow only one
|
||||
official and by-default probe at a given time.
|
||||
|
||||
For instance, in order to probe a DG2 which PCI ID is 0x5690 by Xe instead of
|
||||
i915, the following set of parameters need to be used:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
i915.force_probe=!5690 xe.force_probe=5690
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
In both drivers, the ‘.require_force_probe’ protection forces the user to use the
|
||||
force_probe parameter while the driver is under development. This protection is
|
||||
only removed when the support for the platform and the uAPI are stable. Stability
|
||||
which needs to be demonstrated by CI results.
|
||||
|
||||
In order to avoid user space regressions, i915 will continue to support all the
|
||||
current platforms that are already out of this protection. Xe support will be
|
||||
forever experimental and dependent on the usage of force_probe for these
|
||||
platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
When the time comes for Xe, the protection will be lifted on Xe and kept in i915.
|
||||
|
||||
Xe – Pre-Merge Goals - Work-in-Progress
|
||||
=======================================
|
||||
|
||||
Display integration with i915
|
||||
-----------------------------
|
||||
In order to share the display code with the i915 driver so that there is maximum
|
||||
reuse, the i915/display/ code is built twice, once for i915.ko and then for
|
||||
xe.ko. Currently, the i915/display code in Xe tree is polluted with many 'ifdefs'
|
||||
depending on the build target. The goal is to refactor both Xe and i915/display
|
||||
code simultaneously in order to get a clean result before they land upstream, so
|
||||
that display can already be part of the initial pull request towards drm-next.
|
||||
|
||||
However, display code should not gate the acceptance of Xe in upstream. Xe
|
||||
patches will be refactored in a way that display code can be removed, if needed,
|
||||
from the first pull request of Xe towards drm-next. The expectation is that when
|
||||
both drivers are part of the drm-tip, the introduction of cleaner patches will be
|
||||
easier and speed up.
|
||||
|
||||
Xe – uAPI high level overview
|
||||
=============================
|
||||
|
||||
...Warning: To be done in follow up patches after/when/where the main consensus in various items are individually reached.
|
||||
|
||||
Xe – Pre-Merge Goals - Completed
|
||||
================================
|
||||
|
||||
Drm_exec
|
||||
--------
|
||||
Helper to make dma_resv locking for a big number of buffers is getting removed in
|
||||
the drm_exec series proposed in https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/524376/
|
||||
If that happens, Xe needs to change and incorporate the changes in the driver.
|
||||
The goal is to engage with the Community to understand if the best approach is to
|
||||
move that to the drivers that are using it or if we should keep the helpers in
|
||||
place waiting for Xe to get merged.
|
||||
|
||||
This item ties into the GPUVA, VM_BIND, and even long-running compute support.
|
||||
|
||||
As a key measurable result, we need to have a community consensus documented in
|
||||
this document and the Xe driver prepared for the changes, if necessary.
|
||||
|
||||
Userptr integration and vm_bind
|
||||
-------------------------------
|
||||
Different drivers implement different ways of dealing with execution of userptr.
|
||||
With multiple drivers currently introducing support to VM_BIND, the goal is to
|
||||
aim for a DRM consensus on what’s the best way to have that support. To some
|
||||
extent this is already getting addressed itself with the GPUVA where likely the
|
||||
userptr will be a GPUVA with a NULL GEM call VM bind directly on the userptr.
|
||||
However, there are more aspects around the rules for that and the usage of
|
||||
mmu_notifiers, locking and other aspects.
|
||||
|
||||
This task here has the goal of introducing a documentation of the basic rules.
|
||||
|
||||
The documentation *needs* to first live in this document (API session below) and
|
||||
then moved to another more specific document or at Xe level or at DRM level.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation should include:
|
||||
|
||||
* The userptr part of the VM_BIND api.
|
||||
|
||||
* Locking, including the page-faulting case.
|
||||
|
||||
* O(1) complexity under VM_BIND.
|
||||
|
||||
The document is now included in the drm documentation :doc:`here </gpu/drm-vm-bind-async>`.
|
||||
|
||||
Some parts of userptr like mmu_notifiers should become GPUVA or DRM helpers when
|
||||
the second driver supporting VM_BIND+userptr appears. Details to be defined when
|
||||
the time comes.
|
||||
|
||||
The DRM GPUVM helpers do not yet include the userptr parts, but discussions
|
||||
about implementing them are ongoing.
|
||||
|
||||
ASYNC VM_BIND
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
Although having a common DRM level IOCTL for VM_BIND is not a requirement to get
|
||||
Xe merged, it is mandatory to have a consensus with other drivers and Mesa.
|
||||
It needs to be clear how to handle async VM_BIND and interactions with userspace
|
||||
memory fences. Ideally with helper support so people don't get it wrong in all
|
||||
possible ways.
|
||||
|
||||
As a key measurable result, the benefits of ASYNC VM_BIND and a discussion of
|
||||
various flavors, error handling and sample API suggestions are documented in
|
||||
:doc:`The ASYNC VM_BIND document </gpu/drm-vm-bind-async>`.
|
||||
|
||||
Drm_scheduler
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
Xe primarily uses Firmware based scheduling (GuC FW). However, it will use
|
||||
drm_scheduler as the scheduler ‘frontend’ for userspace submission in order to
|
||||
resolve syncobj and dma-buf implicit sync dependencies. However, drm_scheduler is
|
||||
not yet prepared to handle the 1-to-1 relationship between drm_gpu_scheduler and
|
||||
drm_sched_entity.
|
||||
|
||||
Deeper changes to drm_scheduler should *not* be required to get Xe accepted, but
|
||||
some consensus needs to be reached between Xe and other community drivers that
|
||||
could also benefit from this work, for coupling FW based/assisted submission such
|
||||
as the ARM’s new Mali GPU driver, and others.
|
||||
|
||||
As a key measurable result, the patch series introducing Xe itself shall not
|
||||
depend on any other patch touching drm_scheduler itself that was not yet merged
|
||||
through drm-misc. This, by itself, already includes the reach of an agreement for
|
||||
uniform 1 to 1 relationship implementation / usage across drivers.
|
||||
|
||||
Long running compute: minimal data structure/scaffolding
|
||||
--------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
The generic scheduler code needs to include the handling of endless compute
|
||||
contexts, with the minimal scaffolding for preempt-ctx fences (probably on the
|
||||
drm_sched_entity) and making sure drm_scheduler can cope with the lack of job
|
||||
completion fence.
|
||||
|
||||
The goal is to achieve a consensus ahead of Xe initial pull-request, ideally with
|
||||
this minimal drm/scheduler work, if needed, merged to drm-misc in a way that any
|
||||
drm driver, including Xe, could re-use and add their own individual needs on top
|
||||
in a next stage. However, this should not block the initial merge.
|
||||
|
||||
Dev_coredump
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
Xe needs to align with other drivers on the way that the error states are
|
||||
dumped, avoiding a Xe only error_state solution. The goal is to use devcoredump
|
||||
infrastructure to report error states, since it produces a standardized way
|
||||
by exposing a virtual and temporary /sys/class/devcoredump device.
|
||||
|
||||
As the key measurable result, Xe driver needs to provide GPU snapshots captured
|
||||
at hang time through devcoredump, but without depending on any core modification
|
||||
of devcoredump infrastructure itself.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
GPU VA
|
||||
------
|
||||
Two main goals of Xe are meeting together here:
|
||||
|
||||
1) Have an uAPI that aligns with modern UMD needs.
|
||||
|
||||
2) Early upstream engagement.
|
||||
|
||||
RedHat engineers working on Nouveau proposed a new DRM feature to handle keeping
|
||||
track of GPU virtual address mappings. This is still not merged upstream, but
|
||||
this aligns very well with our goals and with our VM_BIND. The engagement with
|
||||
upstream and the port of Xe towards GPUVA is already ongoing.
|
||||
|
||||
As a key measurable result, Xe needs to be aligned with the GPU VA and working in
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user