> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 8:32 AM > To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] drm/i915: Extract the actual workload > submission mechanism from execbuffer > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:24:19PM +0100, oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > + i915_gem_execbuffer_move_to_active(vmas, ring); > > + i915_gem_execbuffer_retire_commands(dev, file, ring, batch_obj); > > This is where I start freaking out over the mix of global vs logical state and > the implications of reordering. I hear you, Chris. This is scary stuff because it has a lot of implications, but it has been in review for a long time and we seem to be stalled. > The key question for me is how clean busy-ioctl is when it has to pick up the > pieces from a partial failure to submit. AFAICT, __i915_add_request() needs some changes if we don´t want to reuse the intel_ringbuffer.c functionality (Daniel was wondering why I needed to abstract __i915_add_request away with another vfunc: this is the reason) and i915_gem_retire_requests_ring() needs to update last_retired_head in the correct ringbuf (global or logical). Other than that, everything seems healthy, as things like the list of active objects and the list of requests reside on intel_engine_cs, so they are common for both paths. How could I put your mind at ease? maybe by creating a topic branch and going through QA for a while? or merging it as disabled by default? I don´t feel rewriting it forever is going to make it any better :( _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
