On 2017å¹´06æ??23æ?¥ 17:01, zhoucm1 wrote: > > > 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. Do you not use bo list at all in mesa? radv as well? Regards, David Zhou > > Regards, > David Zhou >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> David Zhou >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
