On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03.05.2012 18:32, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the
>>>>> SA
>>>>> code,
>>>>> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so
>>>>> to
>>>>> avoid
>>>>> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I request the
>>>>> include
>>>>> the following 17 patches into drm-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you prefer to merge they are also available from
>>>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux branch reset-rework.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>> I am ok with this 17 patchset, i just sent 3 patch on top of those 17
>>>> that
>>>> bring back some other of the previous cleanup.
>>>
>>> At least for now those three are NAK, cause I just realized we need to
>>> put
>>> those on top of a more sophisticated fence implementation.
>>>
>>> Your idea of not using a list, but 64 bit sequences instead actually
>>> sounds
>>> quite nifty to me. Going to hack something together in the next couple of
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> Christian.
>>
>> Btw you said that you are having issue when using multiple ring, it
>> comes to my attention that you never sync with the GFX ring (unless
>> asked by userspace) that's wrong, before scheduling on another ring
>> than GFX index you need to emit semaphore to make the ring wait for
>> the last emited fence on the GFX ring because of ttm. What might
>> happen is that ttm scheduled bo move on the GFX ring and that the ring
>> you work on start using those bo at there soon to be GPU offset while
>> the bo data is not there yet.
>
> Yeah, already stumbled over that but IIRC Alex already solved that issue.
>
> We set the sync_obj to the fence of the move operation, so when there is a
> move operation in progress we sync to it correctly (at least I hope so).
>
> Christian.
>
Looking at code doesn't seems ok, yes you use the fence from the move
operation but you only emit wait if userspace ask for it, that's
wrong.
if (!(p->relocs[i].flags & RADEON_RELOC_DONT_SYNC)) {
in radeon_cs.c
Cheers,
Jerome
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
