On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:54:51AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 10/11/2016 10:55, Chris Wilson wrote: > >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. > > It is a little bit more than that, but more importantly, is your > plan now to just keep it squashed? I can pre-review it squashed, but > I think it would be very desirable to eventually split it up again. I've unsplit it, but I didn't resend the series again because I didn't think it was that important, resending just this pair would mess up CI. The changed code is just the DFS which is where I would appreciate comments. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
