On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:44:44AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 08/11/2016 12:20, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 01:59:45PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>The scheduler needs to know the dependencies of each request for the > >>lifetime of the request, as it may choose to reschedule the requests at > >>any time and must ensure the dependency tree is not broken. This is in > >>additional to using the fence to only allow execution after all > >>dependencies have been completed. > >> > >>One option was to extend the fence to support the bidirectional > >>dependency tracking required by the scheduler. However the mismatch in > >>lifetimes between the submit fence and the request essentially meant > >>that we had to build a completely separate struct (and we could not > >>simply reuse the existing waitqueue in the fence for one half of the > >>dependency tracking). The extra dependency tracking simply did not mesh > >>well with the fence, and keeping it separate both keeps the fence > >>implementation simpler and allows us to extend the dependency tracking > >>into a priority tree (whilst maintaining support for reordering the > >>tree). > >> > >>To avoid the additional allocations and list manipulations, the use of > >>the priotree is disabled when there are no schedulers to use it. > >> > >>v2: Create a dedicated slab for i915_dependency. > >> Rename the lists. > > > >Sod. I've squashed the priority sort into this as a rebase calamity. > > Waiting for the other patches to get looked at before > untangle/respin or just forgot? :) Just imagine the split ;) Think of the intel_lrc.c as a separate patch. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
