On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Jordan Crouse <jcro...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 09:43:35AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Jordan Crouse <jcro...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> > Add the infrastructure to support the idea of multiple ringbuffers.
>> > Assign each ringbuffer an id and use that as an index for the various
>> > ring specific operations.
>> >
>> > The biggest delta is to support legacy fences. Each fence gets its own
>> > sequence number but the legacy functions expect to use a unique integer.
>> > To handle this we return a unique identifer for each submission but
>> > map it to a specific ring/sequence under the covers. Newer users use
>> > a dma_fence pointer anyway so they don't care about the actual sequence
>> > ID or ring.
>>
>> So, WAIT_FENCE is alive and well, and useful since it avoids the
>> overhead of creating a 'struct file', but it is only used within a
>> single pipe_context (or at least situations where we know which ctx
>> the seqno fence applies to).  It seems like it would be simpler if we
>> just introduced a ctx-id in all the ioctls (SUBMIT and WAIT_FENCE)
>> that take a uint fence.  Then I think we don't need hashtable
>> fancyness.
>>
>> Also, one thing I was thinking of is that some-day we might want to
>> make SUBMIT non-blocking when there is a dependency on a fence from a
>> different ring.  (Ie. queue it up but don't write cmds into rb yet.)
>> Which means we'd need multiple fence timelines per priority-level rb.
>> Which brings me back to wanting a CREATE_CTX type of ioctl.  (And I
>> guess DESTROY_CTX.)  We could make these simple stubs for now, ie.
>> CREATE_CTX just returns the priority level back, and not really have
>> any separate "context" object on the kernel side for now.  This
>> wouldn't change the implementation much from what you have, but I
>> think that gives us some flexibility to later on actually let us have
>> multiple contexts at a given priority level which don't block each
>> other for submits that are still pending on some fence, without
>> another UABI change.
>
> Sure. My motivation here was to mostly avoid making that decision because I 
> know
> from experience once we start going down that path we end up using the context
> ID for everything and we end up re-spinning a bunch of APIs.
>
> But I agree that the context concept is our inevitable future - I've already
> posted one set of patches for "draw queues" (which will soon be bravely 
> renamed
> as submit queues). I think thats the way we want to go because as you said,
> there is a 100% chance we'll go for asynchronous submissions in the very near
> future.
>
> That said, there is a bit of added complexity for per-queue fences - namely,
> we need to move the per-ring fence value in the memptrs to a per-queue value.
> This probably isn't a huge deal (an extra page of memory would give us up to
> 1024 queues to work with globally) but I get itchy every time an arbitrary
> limit is introduced no matter how reasonable it might be.
>

FWIW, we have contexts in amdgpu and it makes a lot of things easier
when dealing with dependencies.  Feel free to browse our
implementation for ideas.

Alex
_______________________________________________
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno

Reply via email to