Hey Timur,

This is actually what Wine has traditionally done, the problem is that we are moving forward to a new implementation for running 32-bit Windows apps, where all of Wine's ELF code is 64-bit, and interacts with the host as a normal 64-bit app. In order to use a 32-bit driver in this context, we'd have to somehow switch the codepage back to 32-bit on the unix side again, and then manually load second copies of mesa and its dependencies like glibc, which would be a lot of effort.

I hope this clears things up, let me know if not

On 10/19/24 17:47, Timur Kristóf wrote:
Hello Derek,

As I am not working on GL, I don't have anything to contribute to the
discussion, but I just have a question out of curiosity: what's wrong
with simply using a driver that is compiled for 32-bit?

Best regards,
Timur

On Fri, 2024-10-18 at 23:55 +0200, Derek Lesho wrote:
Hey everyone 👋,

I'm Derek from the Wine project, and wanted to start a discussion
with
y'all about potentially extending the Mesa OGL drivers to help us
with a
functionality gap we're facing.

Problem Space:

In the last few years Wine's support for running 32-bit windows apps
in
a 64-bit host environment (wow64) has almost reached feature
completion,
but there remains a pain point with OpenGL applications: Namely that
Wine can't return a 64-bit GL implementation's buffer mappings to a
32
bit application when the address is outside of the 32-bit range.

Currently, we have a workaround that will copy any changes to the
mapping back to the host upon glBufferUnmap, but this of course is
slow
when the implementation directly returns mapped memory, and doesn't
work
for GL_PERSISTENT_BIT, where directly mapped memory is required.

A few years ago we also faced this problem with Vulkan's, which was
solved through the VK_EXT_map_memory_placed extension Faith drafted,
allowing us to use our Wine-internal allocator to provide the pages
the
driver maps to. I'm now wondering if an GL equivalent would also be
seen
as feasible amongst the devs here.

Proposed solution:

As the GL backend handles host mapping in its own code, only giving
suballocations from its mappings back to the App, the problem is a
little bit less straight forward in comparison to our Vulkan
solution:
If we just allowed the application to set its own placed mapping when
calling glMapBuffer, the driver might then have to handle moving
buffers
out of already mapped ranges, and would lose control over its own
memory
management schemes.

Therefore, I propose a GL extension that allows the GL client to
provide
a mapping and unmapping callback to the implementation, to be used
whenever the driver needs to perform such operations. This way the
driver remains in full control of its memory management affairs, and
the
amount of work for an implementation as well as potential for bugs is
kept minimal. I've written a draft implementation in Zink using
map_memory_placed [1] and a corresponding Wine MR utilizing it [2],
and
would be curious to hear your thoughts. I don't have experience in
the
Mesa codebase, so I apologize if the branch is a tad messy.

In theory, the only requirement from drivers from the extension would
be
that glMapBuffer always return a pointer from within a page allocated
through the provided callbacks, so that it can be guaranteed to be
positioned within the required address space. Wine would then use
it's
existing workaround for other types of buffers, but as Mesa seems to
often return directly mapped buffers in other cases as well, Wine
could
also avoid the slowdown that comes with copying in these cases as
well.

Why not use Zink?:

There's also a proposal to use a 32-bit PE build of Zink in Wine
bypassing the need for an extension; I brought this to discussion in
this Wine-Devel thread last week [3], which has some arguments
against
this approach.


If any of you have thoughts, concerns, or questions about this
potential
approach, please let me know, thanks!

1:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/Guy1524/mesa/-/commits/placed_allocation

2: https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/6663

3: https://marc.info/?t=172883260300002&r=1&w=2

Reply via email to