On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:01:47AM -0800, Scott D Phillips wrote:
> Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Nanley Chery <nanleych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:59PM -0800, Scott D Phillips wrote:
> >> > Rename the (un)map_gtt functions to (un)map_map (map by
> >> > returning a map) and add new functions (un)map_tiled_memcpy that
> >> > return a shadow buffer populated with the intel_tiled_memcpy
> >> > functions.
> >>
> >> Could you mention some of the rationale?
>
> One is that gtt maps cannot detile the newer Yf and Ys layouts. Not sure
> if Jason or Ken know other reasons. I think we suspected some
> performance difference, but I didn't really see any with well formed
> bulk uploads or downloads.
>
The first reason is plenty in my opinion.
> >> > ---
> >> > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c | 95
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >> > 1 file changed, 86 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > index ead0c359c0..7a90dafa1e 100644
> >> > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_mipmap_tree.c
> >> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> >> > #include "intel_image.h"
> >> > #include "intel_mipmap_tree.h"
> >> > #include "intel_tex.h"
> >> > +#include "intel_tiled_memcpy.h"
> >> > #include "intel_blit.h"
> >> > #include "intel_fbo.h"
> >> >
> >> > @@ -3031,10 +3032,10 @@ intel_miptree_unmap_raw(struct intel_mipmap_tree
> >> *mt)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > static void
> >> > -intel_miptree_map_gtt(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > - struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > - struct intel_miptree_map *map,
> >> > - unsigned int level, unsigned int slice)
> >> > +intel_miptree_map_map(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > + struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > + struct intel_miptree_map *map,
> >> > + unsigned int level, unsigned int slice)
> >> > {
> >> > unsigned int bw, bh;
> >> > void *base;
> >> > @@ -3052,7 +3053,7 @@ intel_miptree_map_gtt(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > y /= bh;
> >> > x /= bw;
> >> >
> >> > - base = intel_miptree_map_raw(brw, mt, map->mode);
> >> > + base = intel_miptree_map_raw(brw, mt, map->mode | MAP_RAW);
> >> >
> >> > if (base == NULL)
> >> > map->ptr = NULL;
> >> > @@ -3078,11 +3079,80 @@ intel_miptree_map_gtt(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > static void
> >> > -intel_miptree_unmap_gtt(struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> >> > +intel_miptree_unmap_map(struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt)
> >> > {
> >> > intel_miptree_unmap_raw(mt);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +/* Compute extent parameters for use with tiled_memcpy functions.
> >> > + * xs are in units of bytes and ys are in units of strides. */
> >> > +static inline void
> >> > +tile_extents(struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt, struct intel_miptree_map
> >> *map,
> >> > + unsigned int level, unsigned int slice, unsigned int *x1,
> >> > + unsigned int *x2, unsigned int *y1, unsigned int *y2)
> >>
> >> It would be nice to give these variables units:
> >> x1_B, y1_el, etc.
>
> Sure, will do
>
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned int block_width, block_height, block_bytes;
> >> > + unsigned int x0_el, y0_el;
> >> > +
> >> > + _mesa_get_format_block_size(mt->format, &block_width,
> >> &block_height);
> >> > + block_bytes = _mesa_get_format_bytes(mt->format);
> >>
> >> block_bytes == mt->cpp (in theory anyways)
>
> Ok, will change to that
>
> >> > +
> >> > + assert(map->x % block_width == 0);
> >> > + assert(map->y % block_height == 0);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_miptree_get_image_offset(mt, level, slice, &x0_el, &y0_el);
> >> > + *x1 = (map->x / block_width + x0_el) * block_bytes;
> >> > + *y1 = map->y / block_height + y0_el;
> >> > + *x2 = *x1 + DIV_ROUND_UP(map->w, block_width) * block_bytes;
> >> > + *y2 = *y1 + DIV_ROUND_UP(map->h, block_height);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void
> >> > +intel_miptree_map_tiled_memcpy(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > + struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > + struct intel_miptree_map *map,
> >> > + unsigned int level, unsigned int slice)
> >> > +{
> >> > + unsigned int x1, x2, y1, y2;
> >> > + tile_extents(mt, map, level, slice, &x1, &x2, &y1, &y2);
> >> > + map->stride = _mesa_format_row_stride(mt->format, map->w);
> >> > + map->buffer = map->ptr = malloc(map->stride * (y2 - y1));
> >>
> >> Using _mesa_align_malloc should improve memory accesses for our 128bit
> >> formats.
> >>
> >> We should probably also assert(map->ptr) or throw a GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY
> >> error if the alloc fails.
>
> Good suggestions, will do that
>
> >> > +
> >> > + if (!(map->mode & GL_MAP_INVALIDATE_RANGE_BIT)) {
> >> > + char *src = intel_miptree_map_raw(brw, mt, map->mode | MAP_RAW);
> >> > + src += mt->offset;
> >> > +
> >> > + tiled_to_linear(x1, x2, y1, y2, map->ptr, src, map->stride,
> >> > + mt->surf.row_pitch, brw->has_swizzling,
> >> mt->surf.tiling,
> >> > + memcpy);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_miptree_unmap_raw(mt);
> >> > + }
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +static void
> >> > +intel_miptree_unmap_tiled_memcpy(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > + struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > + struct intel_miptree_map *map,
> >> > + unsigned int level,
> >> > + unsigned int slice)
> >> > +{
> >> > + if (map->mode & GL_MAP_WRITE_BIT) {
> >> > + unsigned int x1, x2, y1, y2;
> >> > + tile_extents(mt, map, level, slice, &x1, &x2, &y1, &y2);
> >> > +
> >> > + char *dst = intel_miptree_map_raw(brw, mt, map->mode | MAP_RAW);
> >> > + dst += mt->offset;
> >> > +
> >> > + linear_to_tiled(x1, x2, y1, y2, dst, map->ptr, mt->surf.row_pitch,
> >> > + map->stride, brw->has_swizzling, mt->surf.tiling,
> >> memcpy);
> >> > +
> >> > + intel_miptree_unmap_raw(mt);
> >> > + }
> >> > + free(map->buffer);
> >> > + map->buffer = map->ptr = NULL;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > static void
> >> > intel_miptree_map_blit(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > struct intel_mipmap_tree *mt,
> >> > @@ -3640,8 +3710,10 @@ intel_miptree_map(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > (mt->surf.row_pitch % 16 == 0)) {
> >> > intel_miptree_map_movntdqa(brw, mt, map, level, slice);
> >> > #endif
> >> > + } else if (mt->surf.tiling != ISL_TILING_LINEAR) {
> >>
> >> What happens to clients who try to map a tiled surface with the MAP_RAW
> >> flag set? It looks like they expect a tiled buffer but get a linear one
> >> instead.
>
> MAP_RAW is just a construct of brw_bufmgr, not a normal mapping flag, so
> that's not a case that can happen currently. We could add a check here
> for that and go to map_map if we add some use like that in the future.
>
You're right, I confused this function with brw_bo_map :/.
> >> Also, in a number of places where tiling memcpy is used, the following
> >> restriction is present (though the comment varies):
> >>
> >> /* linear_to_tiled() assumes that if the object is swizzled, it is using
> >> * I915_BIT6_SWIZZLE_9_10 for X and I915_BIT6_SWIZZLE_9 for Y. This is
> >> only
> >> * true on gen5 and above.
> >> *
> >> * The killer on top is that some gen4 have an L-shaped swizzle mode,
> >> where
> >> * parts of the memory aren't swizzled at all. Userspace just can't
> >> handle
> >> * that.
> >> */
> >> if (devinfo->gen < 5 && brw->has_swizzling)
> >> return false;
> >>
> >
> > Yikes. I didn't realize that gen4 still had crazy swizzling. I'm a bit
> > surprised this didn't come up in testing.
>
> Hmm, ya looking at i915_gem_fence_reg.c, it looks like just i965gm and
> gm45 could have this, and just some memory controller configurations on
> those platforms, not all. I'm guessing our CI doesn't have such a
> machine with such a configuration, or it should have failed tests.
>
> I guess we just need to stick with gtt maps on gen4.
>
> > --Jason
> >
> >
> >> > + intel_miptree_map_tiled_memcpy(brw, mt, map, level, slice);
> >> > } else {
> >> > - intel_miptree_map_gtt(brw, mt, map, level, slice);
> >> > + intel_miptree_map_map(brw, mt, map, level, slice);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > *out_ptr = map->ptr;
> >> > @@ -3677,11 +3749,16 @@ intel_miptree_unmap(struct brw_context *brw,
> >> > } else if (map->linear_mt) {
> >> > intel_miptree_unmap_blit(brw, mt, map, level, slice);
> >> > #if defined(USE_SSE41)
> >> > - } else if (map->buffer && cpu_has_sse4_1) {
> >> > + } else if (!(map->mode & GL_MAP_WRITE_BIT) &&
> >> > + !mt->compressed && cpu_has_sse4_1 &&
> >> > + (mt->surf.row_pitch % 16 == 0) &&
> >> > + map->buffer) {
> >>
> >> This hunk looks unrelated. Should this be a separate patch?
>
> This is actually needed so that unmap_movntdqa doesn't get called for
> maps that were made with map_tiled_memcpy. The tests for map/unmap
> movntdqa were asymetric, but there was not a case before that would
> result in asymetric behavior.
Gotcha. I should've taken a closer look.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
