Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-16 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 16/07/2020 09:47, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-16 09:41:17) Right I missed dma_fence_is_signaled calls i915_request_completed. In this case the remaining question is do we care about wait ioctl potentially returning before the hypothetical sync fence for the same

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-16 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-16 09:41:17) > Right I missed dma_fence_is_signaled calls i915_request_completed. > > In this case the remaining question is do we care about wait ioctl > potentially returning before the hypothetical sync fence for the same > request is signaled? This seems like

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-16 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 15/07/2020 15:47, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-15 15:47:15) Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-15 13:26:23) On 15/07/2020 13:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 15/07/2020 11:50, Chris Wilson wrote: Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in i915_request_wait()

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-15 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-15 15:47:15) > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-15 13:26:23) > > > > On 15/07/2020 13:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > On 15/07/2020 11:50, Chris Wilson wrote: > > >> Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in > > >> i915_request_wait() and follow up

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-15 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-15 13:26:23) > > On 15/07/2020 13:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 15/07/2020 11:50, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in > >> i915_request_wait() and follow up with a manual invocation of > >> dma_fence_signal().

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-15 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 15/07/2020 13:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 15/07/2020 11:50, Chris Wilson wrote: Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in i915_request_wait() and follow up with a manual invocation of dma_fence_signal(). This appears to cause a large number of contentions on i915_request.lock

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-15 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 15/07/2020 11:50, Chris Wilson wrote: Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in i915_request_wait() and follow up with a manual invocation of dma_fence_signal(). This appears to cause a large number of contentions on i915_request.lock as when the process is woken up after the

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait

2020-07-15 Thread Chris Wilson
Currently, we use i915_request_completed() directly in i915_request_wait() and follow up with a manual invocation of dma_fence_signal(). This appears to cause a large number of contentions on i915_request.lock as when the process is woken up after the fence is signaled by an interrupt, we will