Am 21.09.2016 um 17:07 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 21/09/16 09:56 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 21.09.2016 um 13:04 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 21.09.2016 um 11:56 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
Looks like there are different interpretations of the semantics of
exclusive vs. shared fences. Where are these semantics documented?
Yeah, I think as well that this is the primary question here.
IIRC the fences were explicitly called exclusive/shared instead of
writing/reading on purpose.
I absolutely don't mind switching to them to writing/reading semantics,
but
amdgpu really needs multiple writers at the same time.
So in this case the writing side of a reservation object needs to be a
collection of fences as well.
You can't have multiple writers with implicit syncing. That confusion
is exactly why we called them shared/exclusive. Multiple writers
generally means that you do some form of fencing in userspace
(unsync'ed gl buffer access is the common one). What you do for
private buffers doesn't matter, but when you render into a
shared/winsys buffer you really need to set the exclusive fence (and
there can only ever be one). So probably needs some userspace
adjustments to make sure you don't accidentally set an exclusive write
hazard when you don't really want that implicit sync.
Nope, that isn't true.
We use multiple writers without implicit syncing between processes in the
amdgpu stack perfectly fine.
See amdgpu_sync.c for the implementation. What we do there is taking a look
at all the fences associated with a reservation object and only sync to
those who are from another process.
Then we use implicit syncing for command submissions in the form of
"dependencies". E.g. for each CS we report back an identifier of that
submission to user space and on the next submission you can give this
identifier as dependency which needs to be satisfied before the command
submission can start running.
This is called explicit fencing. Implemented with a driver-private
primitive (and not sync_file fds like on android), but still
conceptually explicit fencing. Implicit fencing really only can handle
one writer, at least as currently implemented by struct
reservation_object.
This was done to allow multiple engines (3D, DMA, Compute) to compose a
buffer while still allow compatibility with protocols like DRI2/DRI3.
Instead of the current solution you need to stop attaching exclusive
fences to non-shared buffers (which are coordinated using the
driver-private explicit fencing you're describing),
Err, the current issue is actually that amdgpu never sets an exclusive
fence, only ever shared ones. :)
Actually amdgpu does set the exclusive fence for buffer migrations,
cause that is an operation user space doesn't know about and so it needs
to be "exclusive" access to the buffer.
and only attach exclusive fences to shared buffers (DRI2/3, PRIME,
whatever).
Still, it occurred to me in the meantime that amdgpu setting the
exclusive fence for buffers shared via PRIME (no matter if it's a write
or read operation) might be a solution. Christian, what do you think?
The problem is that we don't have one fence, but many.
E.g. there can be many operation on a buffer at the same time and we
need to wait for all of them to complete before it can be displayed.
Regards,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
