On 2017å¹´06æ??23æ?¥ 16:25, Christian König wrote: > Am 23.06.2017 um 09:09 schrieb zhoucm1: >> >> >> On 2017å¹´06æ??23æ?¥ 14:57, Christian König wrote: >>> But giving the CS IOCTL an option for directly specifying the BOs >>> instead of a BO list like Marek suggested would indeed save us some >>> time here. >> interesting, I always follow how to improve our cs ioctl, since UMD >> guys aften complain our command submission is slower than windows. >> Then how to directly specifying the BOs instead of a BO list? BO >> handle array from UMD? Could your guys describe more clear? Is it >> doable? > > Making the BO list part of the CS IOCTL wouldn't help at all for the > close source UMDs. To be precise we actually came up with the BO list > approach because of their requirement. > > The biggest bunch of work during CS is reserving all the buffers, > validating them and checking their VM status. Totally agree. Every time when I read code there, I often want to optimize them. > It doesn't matter if the BOs come from the BO list or directly in the > CS IOCTL. > > The key point is that CS overhead is pretty much irrelevant for the > open source stack, since Mesa does command submission from a separate > thread anyway. If irrelevant for the open stack, then how does open source stack handle "The biggest bunch of work during CS is reserving all the buffers, validating them and checking their VM status."? If open stack has a better way, I think closed stack can follow it, I don't know the history. Regards, David Zhou > > Regards, > Christian. > >> >> Regards, >> David Zhou > >
