On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 16.06.21 um 20:30 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 3:41 AM Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Jason & Daniel,
> > >
> > > maybe I should explain once more where the problem with this approach is
> > > and
Timeline semaphore waits (polling on memory) will be unmonitored and as
fast as the roundtrip to memory. Semaphore writes will be slower because
the copy of those write requests will also be forwarded to the kernel.
Arbitrary writes are not protected by the hw but the kernel will take
action
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 02:28:06PM -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> The kernel will know who should touch the implicit-sync semaphore next, and
> at the same time, the copy of all write requests to the implicit-sync
> semaphore will be forwarded to the kernel for monitoring and bo_wait.
>
> Syncobjs
The kernel will know who should touch the implicit-sync semaphore next, and
at the same time, the copy of all write requests to the implicit-sync
semaphore will be forwarded to the kernel for monitoring and bo_wait.
Syncobjs could either use the same monitored access as implicit sync or be
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Sorry I'm behind on mails ...
>
Aren't we all.
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:50:29PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 07:59:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:33:57PM -0700,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 04:40:42PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> Subject and patches say it all.
>
> v2: Address comments, patches have details of changes
> v3: Address comments, patches have details of changes
> v4: Address comments, patches have details of changes
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 07:13:00PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> As long as we can figure out who touched to a certain sync object last that
> would indeed work, yes.
Don't you need to know who will touch it next, i.e. who is holding up your
fence? Or maybe I'm just again totally confused.
Sorry I'm behind on mails ...
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:50:29PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 07:59:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 04:33:57PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > Add entry for i915 new parallel submission uAPI plan.
> > >
> >
Am 16.06.21 um 20:30 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 3:41 AM Christian König
wrote:
Hi Jason & Daniel,
maybe I should explain once more where the problem with this approach is
and why I think we need to get that fixed before we can do something
like this here.
To summarize
> By far the limiting factor for i915g progress now that I've got some
> CI rigged up is review. My preference would be that we all agree that
> nobody wants to look at i915, and some responsible folks (ajax and a
> couple Intel volunteers, perhaps?) bless me to merge without review
> once an
10 matches
Mail list logo
