Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:32 PM Christian König wrote: > > Am 25.05.21 um 17:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König > > wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, > >> > >> Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > >>> Hi Christian, > >>> > >>> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Am 25.05.21 um 17:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König wrote: Hi Daniel, Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter: Hi Christian, On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote: Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: This works by

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 5:05 PM Christian König wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > Hi Christian, > > > > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > >> This works by adding the fence of

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Hi Daniel, Am 25.05.21 um 15:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter: Hi Christian, On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote: Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: [SNIP] We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag. That's not the semantics we need. But could we

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Hi Christian, On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 10:30:19AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > [SNIP] > > > We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag. > > That's not the semantics we need. > > > > > But could we first figure out the semantics we

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Am 21.05.21 um 20:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: [SNIP] We could provide an IOCTL for the BO to change the flag. That's not the semantics we need. But could we first figure out the semantics we want to use here? Cause I'm pretty sure we don't actually need those changes at all and as said before

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:08 PM Christian König wrote: > > Am 21.05.21 um 17:16 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Am 21.05.21 um 17:16 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: ---

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter > > > wrote: > > > > --- > > > >

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter > > wrote: > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 07:58:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > - msm is mildly entertaining. It also supports MSM_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT, > > but because it doesn't use the drm/scheduler it handles fences from > > the wrong context with a

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 2:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > - msm is mildly entertaining. It also supports MSM_SUBMIT_NO_IMPLICIT, > but because it doesn't use the drm/scheduler it handles fences from > the wrong context with a synchronous dma_fence_wait. See > submit_fence_sync() leading to

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear: > > > > "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally > > associated with write operations) or N

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Am 21.05.21 um 11:09 schrieb Daniel Vetter: Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear: "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read operations)."

Re: [Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear: > > "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally > associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read > operations)." > >

[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Comply with implicit fencing rules

Docs for struct dma_resv are fairly clear: "A reservation object can have attached one exclusive fence (normally associated with write operations) or N shared fences (read operations)." https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/driver-api/dma-buf.html#reservation-objects Furthermore a review across