[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: add syncobj timeline support
Lionel Landwerlin
lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com
Mon Jun 3 16:29:54 UTC 2019
On 23/05/2019 16:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-05-23 14:46:42)
>> On 23/05/2019 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-05-23 12:46:20)
>>>> - syncobj = drm_syncobj_find(file, fence.handle);
>>>> - if (!syncobj) {
>>>> - DRM_DEBUG("Invalid syncobj handle provided\n");
>>>> - err = -ENOENT;
>>>> - goto err;
>>>> + if (user_fence.flags & __I915_EXEC_FENCE_UNKNOWN_FLAGS) {
>>>> + err = -EINVAL;
>>>> + goto err;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (user_fence.flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT) {
>>>> + err = drm_syncobj_find_fence(
>>>> + file, user_fence.handle, user_fence.value,
>>>> + DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT,
>>>> + &syncobj, &fence);
>>> Is this still a synchronous wait? That would be an unfortunate change in
>>> behaviour and antithesis to having a scheduler.
>>> -Chris
>>>
>> Not sure what you mean by synchronous wait.
> drm_syncobj_find_fence() has an open-coded wait_event loop. That is
> synchronous and inconsistent with using a scheduler; where one only need
> to return a proxy fence that will be populated when the syncpt is known,
> and be signaled as a result of that syncpt.
> -Chris
>
Just to confirm, are you fine with the submission path of i915 doing the
wait?
We have support for doing in Anv so that's an option if you prefer.
I don't have a preference :)
Thanks,
-Lionel
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list