Hi Maarten,
try to implement this as a replacement for specifying the
RADEON_FENCE_JIFFIES_TIMEOUT on wait_event_*. And reset the timeout
every time radeon_fence_process is called and not only when any of the
sequences increment.
I don't have the time right now to look deeper into it or help
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:47:15 +0200
Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jesse Barnes
> wrote:
> >> We don't have the code yet ready, but that's the direction i915 will
> >> move towards for the near future. Jesse is working on some patches
> >> already.
> >
> > Yeah I'd like
op 23-07-14 15:16, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
> op 23-07-14 14:36, Christian König schreef:
>> Am 23.07.2014 12:52, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Christian König
>>> wrote:
> And the dma-buf would still have fences belonging to both drivers, and it
> would st
op 23-07-14 14:36, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 12:52, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
And the dma-buf would still have fences belonging to both drivers, and it
would still call from outside the driver.
>>>
>>> Calling fro
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> My idea was more that the fence framework provides a
> fence->process_signaling callback that is periodically called after
> enable_signaling is called to trigger manual signal processing in the
> driver.
>
> This would both be suitable as
Am 23.07.2014 12:52, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Christian König
wrote:
And the dma-buf would still have fences belonging to both drivers, and it
would still call from outside the driver.
Calling from outside the driver is fine as long as the driver can do
everyth
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 08:40, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>
>> op 22-07-14 17:59, Christian König schreef:
>>>
>>> Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
>
> Drivers
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Christian König
wrote:
>
>> And the dma-buf would still have fences belonging to both drivers, and it
>> would still call from outside the driver.
>
>
> Calling from outside the driver is fine as long as the driver can do
> everything necessary to complete it's wo
Am 23.07.2014 11:55, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 23-07-14 11:47, Christian König schreef:
Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
The scheduler needs to keep track of a lot of fences, so I think we'll
have to register callbacks, not
op 23-07-14 11:47, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> 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 kee
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> 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 func
Am 23.07.2014 11:44, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter 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 batc
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> We don't have the code yet ready, but that's the direction i915 will
>> move towards for the near future. Jesse is working on some patches
>> already.
>
> Yeah I'd like to get some feedback from Maarten on my bits so I can get
> them ready fo
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter 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 elimin
Am 23.07.2014 11:38, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 23-07-14 11:36, Christian König schreef:
Am 23.07.2014 11:30, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
You submit a job to the hardware and then block the job to wait for radeon
to be finished? Well than
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 11:30, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You submit a job to the hardware and then block the job to wait for
>>> radeon
>>> to be finished? Well than this would i
op 23-07-14 11:36, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 11:30, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> You submit a job to the hardware and then block the job to wait for radeon
>>> to be finished? Well than this would indeed require a hardware
Am 23.07.2014 11:30, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
You submit a job to the hardware and then block the job to wait for radeon
to be finished? Well than this would indeed require a hardware reset, but
wouldn't that make the whole problem even wor
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> You submit a job to the hardware and then block the job to wait for radeon
> to be finished? Well than this would indeed require a hardware reset, but
> wouldn't that make the whole problem even worse?
>
> I mean currently we block one use
Am 23.07.2014 10:54, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Am 23.07.2014 10:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
In this case if the sync was to i915 the i915 lockup procedure would take
care of itsel
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 10:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In this case if the sync was to i915 the i915 lockup procedure would take
>>> care of itself. It wouldn't fix radeon, b
Am 23.07.2014 10:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
In this case if the sync was to i915 the i915 lockup procedure would take care
of itself. It wouldn't fix radeon, but it would at least unblock your intel
card again. I haven't specifically
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
> In this case if the sync was to i915 the i915 lockup procedure would take
> care of itself. It wouldn't fix radeon, but it would at least unblock your
> intel card again. I haven't specifically added a special case to attempt to
> unb
Am 23.07.2014 10:01, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Am 23.07.2014 09:31, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
wrote:
It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup
handling
kicks in when any
op 23-07-14 10:20, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 10:07, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> Just imagine an application using prime is locking up Radeon and because of
>>> that gets killed by the user. Nothing else in the system would
Am 23.07.2014 10:07, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Christian König
wrote:
Just imagine an application using prime is locking up Radeon and because of
that gets killed by the user. Nothing else in the system would use the
Radeon hardware any more and so radeon gets only
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Just imagine an application using prime is locking up Radeon and because of
> that gets killed by the user. Nothing else in the system would use the
> Radeon hardware any more and so radeon gets only called by another driver
> waiting patie
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 23.07.2014 09:31, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup
>>> handling
>>> kicks in when anything calls into the driv
Regardless of the fence implementation, why would it be a good idea to do a
full lockup recovery when some other driver is
calling your wait function? That doesn't seem to be a nice thing to do, so I
think a timeout is the best error you could return here,
other drivers have to deal with that an
op 23-07-14 09:37, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 09:31, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup handling
>>> kicks in when anything calls into the driver from the outside,
Am 23.07.2014 09:32, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 23-07-14 09:15, Christian König schreef:
Am 23.07.2014 09:09, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
Can we somehow avoid the need to call fence_signal() at all? The interrupts at
least on radeon are
Am 23.07.2014 09:31, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
wrote:
It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup handling
kicks in when anything calls into the driver from the outside, if you have a
fence wait function that's called from the
op 23-07-14 09:15, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 09:09, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
>> wrote:
Can we somehow avoid the need to call fence_signal() at all? The
interrupts at least on radeon are way to unreliable for such a thing
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup handling
> kicks in when anything calls into the driver from the outside, if you have a
> fence wait function that's called from the outside but doesn't handle
> lockups you
Am 23.07.2014 09:06, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 23-07-14 08:52, Christian König schreef:
Am 23.07.2014 08:40, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 22-07-14 17:59, Christian König schreef:
Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
Drivers
Am 23.07.2014 09:09, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
Can we somehow avoid the need to call fence_signal() at all? The interrupts at
least on radeon are way to unreliable for such a thing. Can enable_signalling
fail? What's the reason for fence_
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
>> Can we somehow avoid the need to call fence_signal() at all? The interrupts
>> at least on radeon are way to unreliable for such a thing. Can
>> enable_signalling fail? What's the reason for fence_signaled() in the first
>> place?
> I
op 23-07-14 08:52, Christian König schreef:
> Am 23.07.2014 08:40, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>> op 22-07-14 17:59, Christian König schreef:
>>> Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> Drivers exporting fences need to prov
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Christian König
wrote:
>> In the preliminary patches where I can sync radeon with other GPU's I've
>> been very careful in all the places that call into fences, to make sure that
>> radeon wouldn't try to handle lockups for a different (possibly also radeon)
>> car
Am 23.07.2014 08:40, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 22-07-14 17:59, Christian König schreef:
Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a fence->wait
function, everything els
op 22-07-14 17:59, Christian König schreef:
> Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>> Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a fence->wait
>>> function, everything else like fence->enable_signaling or cal
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Christian König
wrote:
>> Maybe I've mixed things up a bit in my description. There is
>> fence_signal which the implementor/exporter of a fence must call when
>> the fence is completed. If the exporter has an ->enable_signaling
>> callback it can delay that call t
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> But like I've said fence->signaled is optional so you don't need this
> necessarily, as long as radeon eventually calls fence_signaled once
> the fence has completed.
Actually I've chatted a bit with Maarten about the different ways we
could
Maybe I've mixed things up a bit in my description. There is
fence_signal which the implementor/exporter of a fence must call when
the fence is completed. If the exporter has an ->enable_signaling
callback it can delay that call to fence_signal for as long as it
wishes as long as enable_signaling
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a
>>> fence->wait
>>> function, everything else like fence->
Am 22.07.2014 17:42, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a fence->wait
function, everything else like fence->enable_signaling or calling
fence_signaled() from the driver is optional.
Drive
Hey,
op 22-07-14 17:02, Christian König schreef:
> Am 22.07.2014 16:44, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>> op 22-07-14 15:45, Christian König schreef:
>>> Am 22.07.2014 15:26, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 22.07.2014 13:57, schrieb
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Christian König
wrote:
> Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a fence->wait
> function, everything else like fence->enable_signaling or calling
> fence_signaled() from the driver is optional.
>
> Drivers wanting to use exported fences don'
Am 22.07.2014 17:17, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Christian König
wrote:
Would that be something you can agree to?
No, the whole enable_signaling stuff should go away. No callback from the
driver into the fence code, only the other way around.
fence->signaled as we
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Christian König
wrote:
>> Would that be something you can agree to?
>
>
> No, the whole enable_signaling stuff should go away. No callback from the
> driver into the fence code, only the other way around.
>
> fence->signaled as well as fence->wait should become man
Am 22.07.2014 16:44, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
op 22-07-14 15:45, Christian König schreef:
Am 22.07.2014 15:26, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 22.07.2014 13:57, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:46:07PM +0200, Daniel
op 22-07-14 15:45, Christian König schreef:
> Am 22.07.2014 15:26, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 22.07.2014 13:57, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:46:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 201
Am 22.07.2014 15:26, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 22.07.2014 13:57, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:46:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:43:13AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 22.07.201
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 22.07.2014 13:57, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 01:46:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:43:13AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >>>Am 22.07.2014 06:05, schrieb Dave Airlie:
>
54 matches
Mail list logo
