On 2017年07月25日 14:50, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:16:55PM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
On 2017年07月24日 19:57, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 24.07.2017 um 10:33 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:20:01PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
With hardware resets in mind it is possible that all shared fences are
signaled, but the exlusive isn't. Fix waiting for everything in this
situation.
How did you end up with both shared and exclusive fences on the same
reservation object? At least I thought the point of exclusive was that
it's exclusive (and has an implicit barrier on all previous shared
fences). Same for shared fences, they need to wait for the exclusive one
(and replace it).
Is this fallout from the amdgpu trickery where by default you do all
shared fences? I thought we've aligned semantics a while back ...
No, that is perfectly normal even for other drivers. Take a look at the
reservation code.
The exclusive fence replaces all shared fences, but adding a shared fence
doesn't replace the exclusive fence. That actually makes sense, cause when
you want to add move shared fences those need to wait for the last exclusive
fence as well.
Hm right.
Now normally I would agree that when you have shared fences it is sufficient
to wait for all of them cause those operations can't start before the
exclusive one finishes. But with GPU reset and/or the ability to abort
already submitted operations it is perfectly possible that you end up with
an exclusive fence which isn't signaled and a shared fence which is signaled
in the same reservation object.
How does that work? The batch(es) with the shared fence are all
supposed to wait for the exclusive fence before they start, which
means even if you gpu reset and restart/cancel certain things, they
shouldn't be able to complete out of order.
Hi Daniel,
Do you mean exclusive fence must be signalled before any shared fence? Where
could I find this restriction?
Yes, Christian also described it above. Could be that we should have
better kerneldoc to document this ...
Is that a known assumption? if that way, it doesn't matter even that we
always wait exclusive fence, right? Just one more line checking.
Thanks,
David Zhou
-Daniel
Thanks,
David Zhou
If you outright cancel a fence then you're supposed to first call
dma_fence_set_error(-EIO) and then complete it. Note that atm that
part might be slightly overengineered and I'm not sure about how we
expose stuff to userspace, e.g. dma_fence_set_error(-EAGAIN) is (or
soon, has been) used by i915 for it's internal book-keeping, which
might not be the best to leak to other consumers. But completing
fences (at least exported ones, where userspace or other drivers can
get at them) shouldn't be possible.
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
