On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:04:03PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 04:24:45PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > That doesn't fit the out-of-order unbound nature of the interface. The > > > interface is just a collection of fences that userspace associates with > > > the buffer that it may signal at any time. (Having no strict timeline is > > > an advantage!) > > > > Fences on the same timeline are supposed to be signalled in-order. If you > > want full out-of-order fences then you need to grab a new timeline number > > for each one. Drivers can and do merge fences on the same timeline and > > just carry the one with the largest seqno around. > > Ugh. Timelines simply don't mean anything everywhere - a very leaky > abstration. > > Nevertheless, a fence_context per vgem_fence would do the trick. Yeah it's a bit meh, but allocating plenty of them is how we currently cope with it. I suggested that we have a special FENCE_TIMELINE_UNORDERED flag (we need it for fence_array too), but that wasn't popular. I still expect it to happen eventually ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
