On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:49 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:21:23AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > In cases where implicit sync is used, it is still useful (for things > > like sub-allocation, etc) to allow userspace to opt-out of implicit > > sync on per-BO basis. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c | 11 +++++++++++ > > include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h | 4 +++- > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c > > index 017a512982a2..e0e1199a822f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c > > @@ -45,9 +45,10 @@ > > * - 1.7.0 - Add MSM_PARAM_SUSPENDS to access suspend count > > * - 1.8.0 - Add MSM_BO_CACHED_COHERENT for supported GPUs (a6xx) > > * - 1.9.0 - Add MSM_SUBMIT_FENCE_SN_IN > > + * - 1.10.0 - Add MSM_SUBMIT_BO_NO_IMPLICIT > > */ > > #define MSM_VERSION_MAJOR 1 > > -#define MSM_VERSION_MINOR 9 > > +#define MSM_VERSION_MINOR 10 > > #define MSM_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL 0 > > > > static const struct drm_mode_config_funcs mode_config_funcs = { > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c > > index eb3536e3d66a..8bad07a04f85 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c > > @@ -334,9 +334,20 @@ static int submit_fence_sync(struct msm_gem_submit *submit, bool no_implicit) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > + /* If userspace has determined that explicit fencing is > > + * used, it can disable implicit sync on the entire > > + * submit: > > + */ > > if (no_implicit) > > continue; > > > > + /* Otherwise userspace can ask for implicit sync to be > > + * disabled on specific buffers. This is useful for internal > > + * usermode driver managed buffers, suballocation, etc. > > + */ > > + if (submit->bos[i].flags & MSM_SUBMIT_BO_NO_IMPLICIT) > > + continue; > > + > > ret = drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies(&submit->base, > > Won't this break shrinkers and fun stuff like that? It's why we added the > new USAGE_OTHER fence slot at least, and also why I wonder whether we Only if the entire explicit sync path was busted.. My daily driver for email/docs/meet/chat/corpstuff is a 4G device and CrOS is all explicit sync.. I would have found out rapidly and dramatically if it was busted :-P But seriously, this doesn't change what fences we attach to buffers, only what the sched job waits on > shouldn't push this into the helper to make the right call. Every driver > kinda needs the same wheel. We kinda already have moved everything we can (with the current driver-specific-uabi model) to helpers, what is left is driver specific ioctl parsing. We absolutely should take a step back and re-evaluate this before anyone else adds a new submit/execbuf ioctl. For example, the driver specific ioctl could just have a pointer to a drm_gem_submit_bo_table type structure, and then we could move the whole thing to a helper. Short of breaking the submit ioctl up (which a uring type uabi would let us do), I think the next best thing is to split out common cross-driver structs for common parts of submit/execbuf. BR, -R > -Daniel > > > obj, > > write); > > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h > > index f54b48ef6a2d..329100016e7c 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h > > @@ -222,10 +222,12 @@ struct drm_msm_gem_submit_cmd { > > #define MSM_SUBMIT_BO_READ 0x0001 > > #define MSM_SUBMIT_BO_WRITE 0x0002 > > #define MSM_SUBMIT_BO_DUMP 0x0004 > > +#define MSM_SUBMIT_BO_NO_IMPLICIT 0x0008 > > > > #define MSM_SUBMIT_BO_FLAGS (MSM_SUBMIT_BO_READ | \ > > MSM_SUBMIT_BO_WRITE | \ > > - MSM_SUBMIT_BO_DUMP) > > + MSM_SUBMIT_BO_DUMP | \ > > + MSM_SUBMIT_BO_NO_IMPLICIT) > > > > struct drm_msm_gem_submit_bo { > > __u32 flags; /* in, mask of MSM_SUBMIT_BO_x */ > > -- > > 2.38.1 > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch