Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
