Plumbing explicit synchronization through the Linux ecosystem
maraeo at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 17:13:22 UTC 2020
On Tue., Mar. 17, 2020, 06:02 Michel Dänzer, <michel at daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2020-03-16 7:33 p.m., Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 5:57 AM Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net>
> >> On 2020-03-16 4:50 a.m., Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>> The synchronization works because the Mesa driver waits for idle
> >>> the GFX pipeline) at the end of command buffers and there is only 1
> >>> graphics queue, so everything is ordered.
> >>> The GFX pipeline runs asynchronously to the command buffer, meaning the
> >>> command buffer only starts draws and doesn't wait for completion. If
> >>> Mesa driver didn't wait at the end of the command buffer, the command
> >>> buffer would finish and a different process could start execution of
> >>> own command buffer while shaders of the previous process are still
> >> running.
> >>> If the Mesa driver submits a command buffer internally (because it's
> >> full),
> >>> it doesn't wait, so the GFX pipeline doesn't notice that a command
> >>> ended and a new one started.
> >>> The waiting at the end of command buffers happens only when the flush
> >>> external (Swap buffers, glFlush).
> >>> It's a performance problem, because the GFX queue is blocked until the
> >> GFX
> >>> pipeline is drained at the end of every frame at least.
> >>> So explicit fences for SwapBuffers would help.
> >> Not sure what difference it would make, since the same thing needs to be
> >> done for explicit fences as well, doesn't it?
> > No. Explicit fences don't require userspace to wait for idle in the
> > buffer. Fences are signalled when the last draw is complete and caches
> > flushed. Before that happens, any command buffer that is not dependent on
> > the fence can start execution. There is never a need for the GPU to be
> > if there is enough independent work to do.
> I don't think explicit fences in the context of this discussion imply
> using that different fence signalling mechanism though. My understanding
> is that the API proposed by Jason allows implicit fences to be used as
> explicit ones and vice versa, so presumably they have to use the same
> signalling mechanism.
> Anyway, maybe the different fence signalling mechanism you describe
> could be used by the amdgpu kernel driver in general, then Mesa could
> drop the waits for idle and get the benefits with implicit sync as well?
Yes. If there is any waiting, or should be done in the GPU scheduler, not
in the command buffer, so that independent command buffers can use the GFX
> Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com
> Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel