Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 3/5] drm/i915: split out virtual engine code
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 01:34:20PM -0800, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: On 12/11/19 1:22 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-12-11 21:12:42) Having the virtual engine handling in its own file will make it easier call it from or modify for the GuC implementation without leaking the changes in the context management or execlists submission paths. No. The virtual engine is tightly coupled into the execlists, it is not the starting point for a general veng. -Chris What's the issue from your POV? We've been using it with little changes for GuC submission and IMO it flows relatively well, mainly just using a different tasklet and slightly different cops (need to call into GuC for pin/unpin). Daniele I agree with Daniele's approach here. The new GuC code can reuse intel_execlists_create_virtual with a couple of GuC specific branches in the function. The new GuC also reuses virtual_engine_enter / virtual_engine_exit in the virtual GuC context operations. To me it makes more sense to have this virtual engine code in its' own file than polluting an execlist specific file with references to the GuC. Matt ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 3/5] drm/i915: split out virtual engine code
On 12/11/19 1:22 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-12-11 21:12:42) Having the virtual engine handling in its own file will make it easier call it from or modify for the GuC implementation without leaking the changes in the context management or execlists submission paths. No. The virtual engine is tightly coupled into the execlists, it is not the starting point for a general veng. -Chris What's the issue from your POV? We've been using it with little changes for GuC submission and IMO it flows relatively well, mainly just using a different tasklet and slightly different cops (need to call into GuC for pin/unpin). Daniele ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 3/5] drm/i915: split out virtual engine code
Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-12-11 21:12:42) > Having the virtual engine handling in its own file will make it easier > call it from or modify for the GuC implementation without leaking the > changes in the context management or execlists submission paths. No. The virtual engine is tightly coupled into the execlists, it is not the starting point for a general veng. -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
