> > >> That's also why I'm not positive on the "no hw preemption, only > >> scheduler" case: You still have a dma_fence for the batch itself, > >> which means still no userspace controlled synchronization or other > >> form of indefinite batches allowed. So not getting us any closer to > >> enabling the compute use cases people want. > > What compute use case are you talking about? I'm only aware about the > wait before signal case from Vulkan, the page fault case and the KFD > preemption fence case. So slight aside, but it does appear as if Intel's Level 0 API exposes some of the same problems as vulkan. They have fences: "A fence cannot be shared across processes." They have events (userspace fences) like Vulkan but specify: "Signaled from the host, and waited upon from within a device’s command list." "There are no protections against events causing deadlocks, such as circular waits scenarios. These problems are left to the application to avoid." https://spec.oneapi.com/level-zero/latest/core/PROG.html#synchronization-primitives Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
