On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 05:00:46PM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:37 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:10 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c | 4 ++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> > > > index 88a24a0b5691..cc8426e1e8a8 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_cs.c
> > > > @@ -617,8 +617,8 @@ static int amdgpu_cs_parser_bos(struct amdgpu_cs_parser *p,
> > > > amdgpu_bo_list_for_each_entry(e, p->bo_list) {
> > > > struct amdgpu_bo *bo = ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(e->tv.bo);
> > > >
> > > > - /* Make sure we use the exclusive slot for shared BOs */
> > > > - if (bo->prime_shared_count)
> > > > + /* Make sure we use the exclusive slot for all potentially shared BOs */
> > > > + if (!(bo->flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_VM_ALWAYS_VALID))
> > > > e->tv.num_shared = 0;
> > >
> > > I think it also makes sense to skip this with
> > > AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_EXPLICIT_SYNC? It can be shared but I don't think
> > > anyone expects implicit sync to happen with those.
> >
> > Ah yes, I missed this entirely. So the "no implicit flag" is already
> > there, and the _only_ thing that's missing really is a way to fish out the
> > implicit fences, and set them.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20210520190007.534046-1-jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > So I think all that's really needed in radv is not setting
> > RADEON_FLAG_IMPLICIT_SYNC for winsys buffers when Jason's dma-buf ioctl
> > are present (means you need to do some import/export and keep the fd
> > around for winsys buffers, but shouldn't be too bad), and then control the
> > implicit fences entirely explicitly like vk expects.
>
> That is the part I'm less sure about. This is a BO wide flag so we are
> also disabling implicit sync in the compositor. If the compositor does
> only do read stuff that is ok, as the inserted exclusive fence will
> work for that. But as I learned recently the app provided buffer may
> end up being written to by the X server which open a whole can of
> potential problems if implicit sync gets disabled between Xserver
> operations on the app provided buffer. Hence setting that on the WSI
> buffer is a whole new can of potential problems and hence I've said a
> submission based flag would be preferred.
>
> I can certainly try it out though.
Hm yeah that's the wrong flag. We need a flag on the drm_file which the
explicit userspace sets. And which is valid only for itself.
There's a nice flags field when creating a ctx, but it's not validated and
there's already a comment that we have to filter out garbage priority, so
that's not use. I'll whip up something entirely untested just as a draft.
-Daniel
>
> >
> > Are you bored enough to type this up for radv? I'll give Jason's kernel
> > stuff another review meanwhile.
> > -Daniel
> >
> > > > e->bo_va = amdgpu_vm_bo_find(vm, bo);
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.31.0
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
