I posted this mail to xfree86.org's public mailing list and surprise,
not a lot of activity on the mailing list. I suspect more people use
matroxfb and X and read this list than people who dont even know what
they are on the other list. This has to do mostly with the mm series of
2.6 kernels
I'm aware that the accel features of matroxfb (ala 2.5/2.6) can only
take advantage of the lower 16MB of a 32MB G450 card. My question
revolves around the fact that fbset -i tells me my card has 16MB even
though dmesg reports the driver detecting 32MB like it should. I hacked
mga_vid (mplayer's video kernel device driver for matroxfb) so that it
works with 2.6 and it also detects 32MB.
Now all of this would be ok because the comments in matroxfb says the
accel features is all that is limited by 16MB and that it can still use
all 32MB for display and such while accelerated. The problem is X only
reports detecting what fbset reports as my video card's memory size and
because i have matroxfb loaded, it ignores videoram directives in the
config file. xaa isn't using the same amount of cache that it normally
would without the framebuffer driver loaded so i am assuming X is not
seeing 32MB like the matroxfb driver says it should be able to do.
Now on top of this. X seems to not be using the mtrr's that the matroxfb
driver setup.
mtrr: no MTRR for e4000000,1000000 found
is what X reports according to dmesg. and xfree86.log shows this as
what is being requested.
This is what is in my /proc/mtrr file for the video card.
reg02: base=0xe4000000 (3648MB), size= 32MB: write-combining, count=3
reg05: base=0xe0000000 (3584MB), size= 64MB: write-combining, count=1
One appears to be the video card's memory, the other agp's access to
system memory.
Perhaps this is due to the 16MB visible thing? Is fbset just reporting
wrong? How can i tell if i'm really only accessing 16MB of my card's
memory or if i actually am utilizing all of it?
I'm using matroxfb simply for the mplayer driver because it does triple
buffering which makes the video look noticably better than simple xv.
On 28 Aug 03 at 14:55, Ed Sweetman wrote:
>
> I'm aware that the accel features of matroxfb (ala 2.5/2.6) can only
> take advantage of the lower 16MB of a 32MB G450 card. My question
> revolves around the fact that fbset -i tells me my card has 16MB even
> though dmesg reports the driver detecting 32MB like it should.
It reports 16MB because 16MB is only memory you can use with matroxfb.
Any mode set which would consume more than 16MB of memory would fail, and
for preventing this from happenning matroxfb reports only 16MB. Actually
it can report even less - memory used by mouse cursor and by secondary
head is not reported as available on primary head too.
If you have nothing to do, you can send me patch which will overcome
this 16MB limitation by using SRCORG and DSTORG registers. Only problem is
that transfers > 16MB have to be split into couple of separate steps.
And if you are going to use SRCORG/DSTORG registers, you MUST fix mga
driver in XFree to not access accelerator when they are not on foreground.
Otherwise you may end up with accelerator painting into the main memory,
causing spectacular crashes.
> Now on top of this. X seems to not be using the mtrr's that the matroxfb
> driver setup.
> mtrr: no MTRR for e4000000,1000000 found
> is what X reports according to dmesg. and xfree86.log shows this as
> what is being requested.
>
> This is what is in my /proc/mtrr file for the video card.
> reg02: base=0xe4000000 (3648MB), size= 32MB: write-combining, count=3
> reg05: base=0xe0000000 (3584MB), size= 64MB: write-combining, count=1
>
> One appears to be the video card's memory, the other agp's access to
> system memory.
>
> Perhaps this is due to the 16MB visible thing? Is fbset just reporting
> wrong? How can i tell if i'm really only accessing 16MB of my card's
> memory or if i actually am utilizing all of it?
Bug XFree people. They are trying to find 16MB mtrr range, and they miss
that there is already single 32MB one which covers both primary and
secondary heads. It is even worse: if they find such range, they remove
it on exit (XF4.2.1).
Petr
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 28 Aug 03 at 14:55, Ed Sweetman wrote:
>
>>I'm aware that the accel features of matroxfb (ala 2.5/2.6) can only
>>take advantage of the lower 16MB of a 32MB G450 card. My question
>>revolves around the fact that fbset -i tells me my card has 16MB even
>>though dmesg reports the driver detecting 32MB like it should.
>
>
> It reports 16MB because 16MB is only memory you can use with matroxfb.
> Any mode set which would consume more than 16MB of memory would fail, and
> for preventing this from happenning matroxfb reports only 16MB. Actually
> it can report even less - memory used by mouse cursor and by secondary
> head is not reported as available on primary head too.
>
> If you have nothing to do, you can send me patch which will overcome
> this 16MB limitation by using SRCORG and DSTORG registers. Only problem is
> that transfers > 16MB have to be split into couple of separate steps.
> And if you are going to use SRCORG/DSTORG registers, you MUST fix mga
> driver in XFree to not access accelerator when they are not on foreground.
> Otherwise you may end up with accelerator painting into the main memory,
> causing spectacular crashes.
>
so basically if you have matroxfb loaded, you have 16MB of video ram
doing nothing? Wouldn't the mga driver avoid overwriting the
framebuffer's memory use by using the fbdev backend? I thought that's
what the backend was basically for, to not have them dumping on eachother.
>>Now on top of this. X seems to not be using the mtrr's that the matroxfb
>>driver setup.
>>mtrr: no MTRR for e4000000,1000000 found
>>is what X reports according to dmesg. and xfree86.log shows this as
>>what is being requested.
>>
>>This is what is in my /proc/mtrr file for the video card.
>>reg02: base=0xe4000000 (3648MB), size= 32MB: write-combining, count=3
>>reg05: base=0xe0000000 (3584MB), size= 64MB: write-combining, count=1
>>
>>One appears to be the video card's memory, the other agp's access to
>>system memory.
>>
>>Perhaps this is due to the 16MB visible thing? Is fbset just reporting
>>wrong? How can i tell if i'm really only accessing 16MB of my card's
>>memory or if i actually am utilizing all of it?
>
>
> Bug XFree people. They are trying to find 16MB mtrr range, and they miss
> that there is already single 32MB one which covers both primary and
> secondary heads. It is even worse: if they find such range, they remove
> it on exit (XF4.2.1).
> Petr
if they didn't remove it on exit, would it corrupt anything to use the
32MB mtrr range or would it be possible to manually make the 16MB mtrr
range overlap the 32MB mtrr range (assuming i dont run anything that
uses the 32MB mtrr range at the same time) ?
i'm a little confused as to why the X mga driver can use all 32MB when
using it's xaa and such features without the framebuffer device loaded
but the fb device can only use 16. Is the framebuffer doing more
aggressive optimizations where by accessing the upper 16MB would hurt
that acceleration while the X server doesn't care or some other reason?
If it's a performance hurting issue then ok, but if it's just a lack of
time or something like that then i'd be willing to help take a stab at it.
On 28 Aug 03 at 17:29, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > On 28 Aug 03 at 14:55, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> >
> >>I'm aware that the accel features of matroxfb (ala 2.5/2.6) can only
> >>take advantage of the lower 16MB of a 32MB G450 card. My question
> >>revolves around the fact that fbset -i tells me my card has 16MB even
> >>though dmesg reports the driver detecting 32MB like it should.
> >
> >
> > It reports 16MB because 16MB is only memory you can use with matroxfb.
> > Any mode set which would consume more than 16MB of memory would fail, and
> > for preventing this from happenning matroxfb reports only 16MB. Actually
> > it can report even less - memory used by mouse cursor and by secondary
> > head is not reported as available on primary head too.
> >
> > If you have nothing to do, you can send me patch which will overcome
> > this 16MB limitation by using SRCORG and DSTORG registers. Only problem is
> > that transfers > 16MB have to be split into couple of separate steps.
> > And if you are going to use SRCORG/DSTORG registers, you MUST fix mga
> > driver in XFree to not access accelerator when they are not on foreground.
> > Otherwise you may end up with accelerator painting into the main memory,
> > causing spectacular crashes.
> >
>
> so basically if you have matroxfb loaded, you have 16MB of video ram
> doing nothing? Wouldn't the mga driver avoid overwriting the
> framebuffer's memory use by using the fbdev backend? I thought that's
> what the backend was basically for, to not have them dumping on eachother.
Top 16MB of videoram is used as secondary head's framebuffer. Each
G400/G450/G550 presents itself as two framebuffer devices.
> >>This is what is in my /proc/mtrr file for the video card.
> >>reg02: base=0xe4000000 (3648MB), size= 32MB: write-combining, count=3
> >>reg05: base=0xe0000000 (3584MB), size= 64MB: write-combining, count=1
> >
> > Bug XFree people. They are trying to find 16MB mtrr range, and they miss
> > that there is already single 32MB one which covers both primary and
> > secondary heads. It is even worse: if they find such range, they remove
> > it on exit (XF4.2.1).
> > Petr
>
> if they didn't remove it on exit, would it corrupt anything to use the
> 32MB mtrr range or would it be possible to manually make the 16MB mtrr
> range overlap the 32MB mtrr range (assuming i dont run anything that
> uses the 32MB mtrr range at the same time) ?
They should only decrement range's use count when they exit. But I'm
not sure that /proc/mtrr API available to the userspace makes this feature
somehow accessible.
You can create 16MB range which overlaps 32MB, but there is no point in doing
that... It only consumes one MTRR register, and there is very few of
them.
> i'm a little confused as to why the X mga driver can use all 32MB when
> using it's xaa and such features without the framebuffer device loaded
> but the fb device can only use 16. Is the framebuffer doing more
> aggressive optimizations where by accessing the upper 16MB would hurt
> that acceleration while the X server doesn't care or some other reason?
> If it's a performance hurting issue then ok, but if it's just a lack of
> time or something like that then i'd be willing to help take a stab at it.
See 'if (pMga->AccelFlags & LARGE_ADDRESSES)' in the mga_storm.c in XFree.
G450/G550 accelerators can only read from 16MB window at SRCORG, and write
to 16MB window at DSTORG. matroxfb just leaves both SRCORG & DSTORG at
zeroes.
BTW, I did not find where XFree mga driver reinitializes accelerator
if bitblt or fill covers area larger than 16MB, so it looks to me like that
XFree driver also cannot use >16MB for on-screen memory. And as matroxfb
reports only on-screenable memory...
But splitting bitblt and fillrect on 16th MB should not be a big problem.
As I said, if someone will write it... (note that SRCORG/DSTORG are G200+,
so you must create two code paths, one for older chips, and one for G200+
(actually G450+, as older chips can address all its memory, and matroxfb
does not need accelerator painting directly to/from the main system memory)).
Petr Vandrovec