On 23/05/2019 16:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-05-23 14:46:42)
On 23/05/2019 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2019-05-23 12:46:20)
- syncobj = drm_syncobj_find(file, fence.handle);
- if (!syncobj) {
- DRM_DEBUG("Invalid syncobj handle provided\n");
- err = -ENOENT;
- goto err;
+ if (user_fence.flags & __I915_EXEC_FENCE_UNKNOWN_FLAGS) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ if (user_fence.flags & I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT) {
+ err = drm_syncobj_find_fence(
+ file, user_fence.handle, user_fence.value,
+ DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT,
+ &syncobj, &fence);
Is this still a synchronous wait? That would be an unfortunate change in
behaviour and antithesis to having a scheduler.
-Chris
Not sure what you mean by synchronous wait.
drm_syncobj_find_fence() has an open-coded wait_event loop. That is
synchronous and inconsistent with using a scheduler; where one only need
to return a proxy fence that will be populated when the syncpt is known,
and be signaled as a result of that syncpt.
-Chris
Just to confirm, are you fine with the submission path of i915 doing the
wait?
We have support for doing in Anv so that's an option if you prefer.
I don't have a preference :)
Thanks,
-Lionel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
