Hi Sima, first of all, thanks for looking into this series. On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 07:31:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:08:40PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch series introduces static load balancing for GPUs with > > multiple compute engines. It's a lengthy series, and some > > challenging aspects still need to be resolved. > > Do we have an actual user for this, where just reloading the entire driver > (or well-rebinding, if you only want to change the value for a specific > device) with a new module option isn't enough? Yes, we have users for this and this has been already agreed with architects and maintainers. Why are you saying that we are reloading/rebinding the driver? I'm only removing the exposure of user engines, which is basically a flag in the engines data structure. > There's some really gnarly locking and lifetime fun in there, and it needs > a corresponding justification. What locking are you referring about? I only added one single mutex that has a comment and a justification. If you think that's not enough, I can of course improve it (please note that the changes have a good amount of comments and I tried to be aso more descriptive as I could). When I change the engines configurations only for the compute engines and only for DG2 platforms, I need to make sure that no other user is affected by the change. Thus I need to make sure that access to some of the strucures are properly serialized. > Which needs to be enormous for this case, > meaning actual customers willing to shout on dri-devel that they really, > absolutely need this, or their machines will go up in flames. > Otherwise this is a nack from me. Would you please tell me why are you nacking the patch? So that I address your comments for v4? Thanks, Andi
