Re: [Dri-devel] Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] DRM and pci_driver conversion

On Monday 27 October 2003 16:43, Jeff Garzik wrote:

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 04:37:30PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:

quoted

On Saturday 25 October 2003 21:17, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

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.

Yes, you are partially right. The GCC project had already the problem
that they startet too simple with their pipeline management and had to
redesign it. 

If the kernel framework will not suffice the vendor needs (e.g. they
don't win in the benchmark, just because we cannot model their
hardware), it will be simply not used and we'll get just another nvidia
like driver.

But maybe I've read to much GCC internals recently, so I favor machine
descriptions and stateful pipeline descriptions for this ;-)

Your key argument still holds: This is just taking a instruction/data stream
from multiple sources and mapping it to another one with multiple
data/instruction sinks -> JIT.

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.

I noticed that it's ok to keep the design in mind, even in the comments,
but it never proved good to me to keep the design in dead code and
useless layers.

So I guess, we agree here ;-)