Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-05-08 10:57:37) > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > While we ordinarily do not skip submit-fences due to the accompanying > > hook that we want to callback on execution, a submit-fence on the same > > timeline is meaningless. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > index 589739bfee25..be2ce9065a29 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c > > @@ -1242,6 +1242,9 @@ i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq, > > continue; > > } > > > > + if (fence->context == rq->fence.context) > > + continue; > > + > > /* > > * We don't squash repeated fence dependencies here as we > > * want to run our callback in all cases. > > The comment in here makes me nervous. Is this skipping on same context > other than squashing? The hooks we have only apply between timelines, so skipping isn't an issue. Suppressing the wait ensures that syncobj-future-submit-past: I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT | I915_EXEC_FENCE_WAIT_SUBMIT | I915_EXEC_FENCE_SIGNAL is a no-op. That is if you declare that request should wait for itself to be submitted before it is submitted, we correctly conclude that is degenerate and a no-op. We can generalise that to realise that waiting for any fence along the same timeline to be submitted before we are submitted is guaranteed by the timeline itself, and so all are no-ops. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
