2012/5/3 Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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)) {
>
The default is to sync all the rings. We only skip the sync if the
_DONT_ sync flag is set.
Alex
> in radeon_cs.c
>
> Cheers,
> Jerome
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
