[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uHEgdU+Uz-OnRGvT_wFjOXHpZmgZcrORsBrST_MY5_ADA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:44:25 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc: Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 09/17] drm/radeon: use common fence
implementation for fences
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch> wrote:
> The scheduler needs to keep track of a lot of fences, so I think we'll
> have to register callbacks, not a simple wait function. We must keep
> track of all the non-i915 fences for all oustanding batches. Also, the
> scheduler doesn't eliminate the hw queue, only keep it much slower so
> that we can sneak in higher priority things.
>
> Really, scheduler or not is orthogonal.
Also see my other comment about interactions between wait_fence and
the i915 reset logic. We can't actually use it from within the
scheduler code since that would deadlock.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists