[PATCH 1/2] drm/ttm: add a way to bo_wait for either the last read or last write

[Thomas Hellstrom]

On 10/08/2011 12:03 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Thomas Hellstrom<thomas at shipmail.org>  wrote:
>    
>> OK. First I think we need to make a distinction: bo sync objects vs driver
>> fences. The bo sync obj api is there to strictly provide functionality that
>> the ttm bo subsystem is using, and that follows a simple set of rules:
>>
>> 1) the bo subsystem does never assume sync objects are ordered. That means
>> the bo subsystem needs to wait on a sync object before removing it from a
>> buffer. Any other assumption is buggy and must be fixed. BUT, if that
>> assumption takes place in the driver unknowingly from the ttm bo subsystem
>> (which is usually the case), it's OK.
>>
>> 2) When the sync object(s) attached to the bo are signaled the ttm bo
>> subsystem is free to copy the bo contents and to unbind the bo.
>>
>> 3) The ttm bo system allows sync objects to be signaled in different ways
>> opaque to the subsystem using sync_obj_arg. The driver is responsible for
>> setting up that argument.
>>
>> 4) Driver fences may be used for or expose other functionality or adaptions
>> to APIs as long as the sync obj api exported to the bo sybsystem follows the
>> above rules.
>>
>> This means the following w r t the patch.
>>
>> A) it violates 1). This is a bug that must be fixed. Assumptions that if one
>> sync object is singnaled, another sync object is also signaled must be done
>> in the driver and not in the bo subsystem. Hence we need to explicitly wait
>> for a fence to remove it from the bo.
>>
>> B) the sync_obj_arg carries *per-sync-obj* information on how it should be
>> signaled. If we need to attach multiple sync objects to a buffer object, we
>> also need multiple sync_obj_args. This is a bug and needs to be fixed.
>>
>> C) There is really only one reason that the ttm bo subsystem should care
>> about multiple sync objects, and that is because the driver can't order them
>> efficiently. A such example would be hardware with multiple pipes reading
>> simultaneously from the same texture buffer. Currently we don't support this
>> so only the *last* sync object needs to be know by the bo subsystem. Keeping
>> track of multiple fences generates a lot of completely unnecessary code in
>> the ttm_bo_util file, the ttm_bo_vm file, and will be a nightmare if / when
>> we truly support pipelined moves.
>>
>> As I understand it from your patches, you want to keep multiple fences
>> around only to track rendering history. If we want to do that generically, i
>> suggest doing it in the execbuf util code in the following way:
>>
>> struct ttm_eu_rendering_history {
>>     void *last_read_sync_obj;
>>     void *last_read_sync_obj_arg;
>>     void *last_write_sync_obj;
>>     void *last_write_sync_obj_arg;
>> }
>>
>> Embed this structure in the radeon_bo, and build a small api around it,
>> including *optionally* passing it to the existing execbuf utilities, and you
>> should be done. The bo_util code and bo_vm code doesn't care about the
>> rendering history. Only that the bo is completely idle.
>>
>> Note also that when an accelerated bo move is scheduled, the driver needs to
>> update this struct
>>      
> OK, sounds good. I'll fix what should be fixed and send a patch when
> it's ready. I am now not so sure whether doing this generically is a
> good idea. :)
>
> Marek
>    

Marek,
Any progress on this. The merge window is about to open soon I guess and 
we need a fix by then.

/Thomas