On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:23 AM Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 23/03/2021 13:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:14:36AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 22/03/2021 16:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:31 PM Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote:
On 22/03/2021 14:57, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:33 PM Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com wrote: > > > On 22/03/2021 14:09, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:22:01AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >>> >>> On 19/03/2021 22:38, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >>>> This API allows one context to grab bits out of another context upon >>>> creation. It can be used as a short-cut for setparam(getparam()) for >>>> things like I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_VM. However, it's never been used by any >>>> real userspace. It's used by a few IGT tests and that's it. Since it >>>> doesn't add any real value (most of the stuff you can CLONE you can copy >>>> in other ways), drop it. >>> >>> No complaints to remove if it ended up unused outside IGT. Latter is a _big_ >>> problem though, since it is much more that a few IGT tests. So I really >>> think there really needs to be an evaluation and a plan for that (we don't >>> want to lose 50% of the coverage over night). >>> >>>> There is one thing that this API allows you to clone which you cannot >>>> clone via getparam/setparam: timelines. However, timelines are an >>>> implementation detail of i915 and not really something that needs to be >>> >>> Not really true timelines are i915 implementation detail. They are in fact a >>> dma-fence context:seqno concept, nothing more that than. I think you are >>> probably confusing struct intel_timeline with the timeline wording in the >>> uapi. Former is i915 implementation detail, but context:seqno are truly >>> userspace timelines. >> >> I think you're both saying the same thing and talking a bit past each >> another. >> >> Yes the timeline is just a string of dma_fence, that's correct. Now >> usually if you submit batches with execbuf, we have 3 ways to synchronize >> concurrent submission: implicit sync, sync_file and drm_syncob. They all >> map to different needs in different protocols/render apis. >> >> Now in one additional case the kernel makes sure that batchbuffers are >> ordered, and that's when you submit them to the same hw ctx. Because >> there's only 1 hw context and you really can't have batchbuffers run on >> that single hw context out of order. That's what the timeline object we >> talk about here is. But that largely is an internal implementation detail, >> which happens to also use most/all the same infrastructure as the >> dma_fence uapi pieces above. >> >> Now the internal implementation detail leaking here is that we exposed >> this to userspace, without there being any need for this. What Jason >> implements with syncobj in the next patch is essentially what userspace >> should have been using for cross-engine sync. media userspace doesn't care >> about interop with winsys/client apis, so they equally could have used >> implicit sync or sync_file here (which I think is the solution now for the >> new uapi prepped internally), since they all are about equally powerful >> for stringing batchbuffers together. > > Are you saying we exposed a single timeline of execution per hw context > via the single timeline flag?!
Nope.
> Timelines of execution were always exposed. Any "engine" (ring > previously) in I915_EXEC_RING_MASK was a single timeline of execution. > It is completely the same with engine map engines, which are also > different indices into I915_EXEC_RING_MASK space. > > Userspace was aware of these timelines forever as well. Media was > creating multiple contexts to have multiple timelines (so parallelism). > Everyone knew that engine-hopping submissions needs to be either > implicitly or explicitly synchronised, etc.
Yup, I think we're saying the same thing here.
> So I really don't see that we have leaked timelines as a concept *now*. > What the patch has exposed to userspace is a new way to sync between > timelines and nothing more.
We've leaked it as something you can now share across hw context.
Okay so we agree on most things but apparently have different definitions of what it means to leak internal implementation details.
While at the same time proof that we haven't leaked the internal implementation details is that Jason was able to implement the single timeline flag with a drm syncobj at the execbuf top level. (Well mostly, ignoring the probably inconsequential difference of one vs multiple fence contexts.)
It's not a matching implementation. It's only good enough for what media needs, and essentially what media should have done to begin with.
There's substantially different behaviour between SINGLE_TIMELINE and what Jason has done here when you race concurrent execbuf calls: Former guarantees total ordering, the latter doesn't even try. They are not the same thing, but luckily userspace doesn't care about that difference.
Sounds like a very important difference to stress in the commit message.
Secondly, I am unclear whether we have agreement on whether the single timeline flag is leaking implementation details of the execlists scheduler to userspace or not?
I do think Jason&me agree on that it does leak an internal concept to userspace that we shouldn't leak.
I'm honestly not entirely understanding your argument for why single_timeline isn't an internal concept somehow, and how exposing it to userspace doesn't leak that concept to userspace. Whether internally that concept is now perfectly represented by just struct intel_timeline, or maybe more the seqno/hswp, or more diffused through the code doesn't really change that we have an internal concept that we're now exposing for sharing in ways that wasn't possible before.
Don't know, obviously we think with very different paradigms.
GEM context always had as many timelines as there are engines in it's map so multiple timelines is the default mode everyone is aware of.
Single timeline flag added a new mode where instead of multiple timelines single GEM context becomes a single timeline.
The fact that userspace can achieve the single timeline execution on its own should be an argument enough that it is not a new concept that got leaked out. Definitely not any backend specific implementation details. It simply added a new feature which may or may not have been needed.
I just commented on the SINGLE_TIMELINE patch and will send the v3 momentarily. I think you'll find the commit message much more to your liking. :-)
--Jason
Regards,
Tvrtko
P.S. Or rename the flag in your mind to "I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SERIAL_EXECUTION" or something and see if that still leaks the timeline or some implementation details.
P.P.S Keep in mind I am arguing on wording in single timeline flag removal. Removal of timeline cloning is not controversial.