Is there a comprehensive list, where i can check the supported Vulkan extensions for all AMD GPUs? I have been looking all over the internet, but can't find any information on this.
I currently have a RX570, but I thought the Vulkan API would feature a fallback mode for cards lacking hardware acceleration.
I think i installed the amdgpu-driver correctly, but when i try to run the raytracing_simple example, it says that the RX570 is lacking the requested extensions.
AMD introduced ray tracing support with the RX 6x00 series. A fallback mode for older hardware would have to be implemented by the vendor, which is not the case on AMD. So you need a RX 6x00 GPU for doing hardware accelerated ray tracing on Linux.
You can check VK_KHR_ray_tracing_pipeline support on Linux here: https://vulkan.gpuinfo.org/listdevicescoverage.php?extension=VK_KHR_ray_tracing_pipeline&platform=linux
That's a Vulkan hardware database I'm maintaining, which also has listings for extension support on different platforms. The data provided there is from user-uploaded reports. While not an official Vulkan database, thanks to regular contributions it's mostly complete and gives a good overview on Vulkan support for different hardware.
Note: As mentioned above, reports are submitted by users, so the list may not be 100% complete.
Related
My objective is to obtain the ability of parallelizing a code in order to be able to run it on GPU, and the Graal would be to have a software that can run in parallel on any GPU or even CPU (Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, and so...).
From what I understood, the best solution would be to use OpenCL. But shortly after that, I also read about SYCL, that is supposed to simplify the codes that run on GPU.
But is it just that ? Isn't better to use a lower level language in order to be sure that it will be possible to be used in the most hardware possible ?
I know that all the compatibilities are listed on The Khronos Group website, but I am reading everything and its opposite on the Internet (like if a NVIDIA card supports CUDA, then it supports OpenCL, or NVIDIA cards will never work with OpenCL, even though OpenCL is supposed to work with everything)...
This is a new topic to me and there are lots of informations on the Internet... It would be great if someone could give me a simple answer to this question.
Probably yes.
OpenCL is supported on all AMD/Nvidia/Intel GPUs and on all Intel CPUs since around 2009. For best compatibility with almost any device, use OpenCL 1.2. The nice thing is that the OpenCL Runtime is included in the graphics drivers, so you don't have to install anything extra to work with it or to get it working on another machine.
SYCL on the other hand is newer and not yet established that well. For example, it is not officially supported (yet) on Nvidia GPUs: https://forums.developer.nvidia.com/t/is-sycl-available-on-cuda/37717/7
But there are already SYCL implememtations that are compatible with Nvidia/AMD GPUs, essentially built on top of CUDA or OpenCL 1.2, see here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/63468372/9178992
How to run the JOGL code on the GPU?How to Check whether the JOGL code is Running on the CPU or GPU?How to Select the particular GPU When multiple GPU are present ?
JOGL allows to choose a profile and some capabilities, they are used to pick a driver and some of them aren't hardware accelerated. You can use the boolean parameter "favorHardwareRasterizer" of this method as an hint to indicate to JOGL that you prefer using an hardware accelerated (GPU) profile.
GLContext.isHardwareRasterizer tells you whether you benefit of hardware acceleration. GL.glGetString(GL.GL_RENDERER) and GL.glGetString(GL.GL_VENDOR) can help you to get some information about the renderer and the vendor of the OpenGL driver.
You can't pick a particular GPU. There is no support of NVidia GPU affinity yet. "multiple GPUs" is vague, it can designate Optimus, SLI or Crossfire.
Rather ask your JOGL specific question on our official forum. Only a few contributors and maintainers come here.
As I understand, a BSP (Board Support Package) contains bootloader, kernel and device driver which help OS to work on HW. But I'm confused because OS also contains a kernel. So what is the difference between the kernel in OS and the kernel in BSP?
What a BSP comprises of depends on context; generically it is code or libraries to support a specific board design. That may be provided as generic code from the board supplier for use in a bare-metal system or for integrating with an OS, or it may be specific to a particular OS, or it may even include an OS. In any case it provides board specific support for higher-level software.
A kernel is board agnostic (though often processor architecture specific), and makes no direct access to hardware not intrinsic to the processor architecture on which it runs. Typically an OS or application will require a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL); the HAL may well be built using the BSP, or the BSP may in fact be the HAL. A vendor may even package a HAL and OS and refer to that as a BSP.
The term means what it means to whoever is using it - context is everything. For example in VxWorks, WindRiver use the term BSP to refer to the layer that supports the execution of a VxWorks based application on a specific hardware design. A board vendor on the other hand may provide a complete Linux distribution ported to the board and refer to that as a BSP.
However and to what extent a particular vendor or developer chooses to support a board is a board support package regardless of how much or how little it may contain.
BSP definition is broad. It is a supporting software package for a specific board. BSP for a tiny microcontroller probably just contains HW drivers for its peripherals. On the other hand, for an embedded CPU it may contain HW drivers, bootloader and OS kernel and what not.
So the kernel in a BSP (board support package) is just a specific version of an OS kernel that has been ported to your board.
Im probably just saying the same things already said.
You have a chip and/or board product you want to sell to other (software) developers. A reference design (board) with the chip(s) in question are used. The BSP is a vague term to mean the software that is provided to you as a software developer to ideally make your life easier in using that product (chip and/or board) and adding your software to it or developing for it. So if it is a linux or rtos or other operating system capable platform and the vendor (providing the bsp) believes that users want an operating system and a specific operating system, then instead of you having to port the os to that target, they do it for you. If something like linux that is open source, then you either are told which linux sources to download then the patches made by the bsp are added and/or the bsp contains the complete sources for the whole thing already patched. Drivers, applications as deemed necessary by the vendor etc. Multiple operating systems may be supported if the vendor feels that is needed in order to attract customers to buy that board/chip product.
The whole package of software that you get from them to make that chip/board into your own product, is the BSP.
vxWorks kernel which you can run on a Board contains vxWorks core kernel and "other components" which may change from one environment.
Core kernel contains essential programs such as Scheduler, Memory manager, Basic File systems, security features etc.
These "other components" which are part of BSP may be optional or may vary from system to system, and helps the core kernel features.
In simple words, the image dislays the defination of BSP. Please correct me if I'm wrong
I would say for a well structured code base, the application layer should be abstracted from lower layers by the HAL layer. This would allow the app layer to be portable if we want to migrate the system to a new board. If you see you have board/CPU specific logic in your app layer, you know you have broken the portability.
The HAL layer functions' bodies should contain board specific code, here is where the BSP layer code comes into play. When we want to port the system to a new board, code changes should happens in the HAL functions' bodies, while the HAL functions' declaration should not change, which leads to the app layer remains the same.
I have looked at lots of HSA introductions and find that a HSA-compliant GPU should be preemptible and support context switch.
But the Wikipedia article "AMD Accelerated Processing Unit" says GPU compute context switch, GPU graphics preemption will have support in Carizzo APU (2015).
So I wonder whether Kaveri is a HSA-compliant processor?
Thanks!
Kaveri is a 1st generation HSA-compliant APU.
As a 1st generation, it is still missing some features of the HSA specification. One of those features is Mid-wave preemption, which means the ability to preempt a graphic/compute work in the middle, context-switch to a different wave (work) and then resume the original wave.
Without this feature, Kaveri needs to finish the wave and only then can it move to a different wave.
Having said that, there is already an infrastructure for running HSA applications on Kaveri in Linux (Ubuntu 13/14). See https://github.com/HSAFoundation/Linux-HSA-Drivers-And-Images-AMD for kernel bits and https://github.com/HSAFoundation/Okra-Interface-to-HSA-Device for userspace bits.
This infrastructure also supports the Aparapi and Sumatra projects on Kaveri - running Java code on the GPU.
Hope this helps.
I am wondering if anyone have any information on development boards where you can utilize ARM TrustZone? I have the BeagleBoard XM which uses TI's OMAP3530 with Cortex-A8 processor that supports trust zone, however TI confirmed that they have disabled the function on the board as it is a general purpose device.
Further research got me to the panda board which uses OMAP4430 but there is no response from TI and very little information on the internet. How do you learn how to use trust zone?
Best Regards
Mr Gigu
As far as I know, all the OMAP processors you can get off-the-shelf are GP devices, i.e. with the TrustZone functions disabled (or else they're processors in production devices such as off-the-shelf mobile phones, for which you don't get the keys). The situation is similar with other SoC manufacturers. Apart from ARM's limited publications (which only cover the common ARM features anyway, and not the chip-specific features such as memory management details, booting and loading trusted code), all documentation about TrustZone features comes under NDA. This is a pity because it precludes independent analysis of these security features or leverage by open-source software.
I'm afraid that if you want to program for a TrustZone device, you'll have to contact a representative of TI or one of their competitors, convince them that your application is something they want to happen, and obtain HS devices, the keys to sign code for your development boards, and the documentation without which you'll have a very hard time.
As of today OP-TEE runs on quite a few devices (see OP-TEE platforms supported) and several of them are development boards readily available. To name a few HiKey, Raspberry Pi3, ARM Juno Board, Freescale i.MX6 variants etc. Either you could pick up one of those or you could simply try it all using QEMU which is very well supported in OP-TEE.
You can get 45 days trial version for ARM fastmodels. RaspberyPI is supposed to support TrustZone too. www.openvirtualization.org has full open source implementation of ARM TrustZone. ARM is moving away from its proprietary TrustZone APIs to globalplatform API. GlobalPlatform also defines the APIs for Inter process communication etc.
There are a few select boards at this time that do allow development with TrustZone. As far as general purpose board, the FriendlyARM board is a good start (http://www.friendlyarm.net). Also, any board with a Cortex A15 processor must have TrustZone available due to the fact that the virtualization extensions can only be utilized from the Normal world. There may still be a question of whether or not the manufacturer has their own code running in the Secure world, but you can always try. The Arndale is a good development board, but unfortunately Samsung already has code running in the Secure world, so by the time you get access, you're running in the Normal world. So if you need Secure world access, look for non-Samsung, Cortex A15 processors. That'd be your best bet.
It's also worth noting the TI did not technically disable TrustZone. Instead, the bootrom code transitions the processor into the Normal world prior to switching execution to U-boot. So it's actually using TrustZone to move to the Normal world, but then doesn't provide a mechanism for moving back to the Secure world. To prove this, just try to read the SCR and you'll get an undefined exception, which is what will typically happen from the Normal world. However, if you perform a SMC call, it will execute just as expected (i.e., it switches to the Secure world, but then just switches right back to the Normal world), so it looks like nothing happened.
regarding openvirtualization, it can be ported to arm development board like the samsung exynos 4XXX.
you will have access to all source code including the secure os if you use openvirtualization.
but if you just want to develop programs that use the trustzone, I wonder if it is necessary. maybe there are standard driver or api that allow you to do it without worrying about compiling your own secure os?
the best thing you can do is contact parties like Gemalto and the people that brought Mobicore. Note that they will indeed ask you to sign an NDA.
Secondly, you can buy the ARM DS5 development suite. This comes with a lot of documentation including some on trustzone.
You should really take a look at the USB armory from Inverse Path: http://www.inversepath.com/usbarmory.html
It's built on open hardware and open source with full access to Trustzone (you can blow in die fuse to enable secure boot): https://github.com/inversepath/usbarmory
They successfully ran Genode within TZ and Linux in the normal world.