[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53CF84C7.2020507@vodafone.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:47:51 +0200
From: Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Christian König
<christian.koenig@....com>
CC: 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
Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> 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.
Yeah, I see. You would need some way to abort the waiting on other
devices fences in case of a lockup.
What about an userspace thread to offload waiting and command submission to?
Just playing with ideas right now,
Christian.
> -Daniel
--
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