On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 07:15:53PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:15:04PM +0100, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Work in progress for replacing seqno usage with requst structures. > > > > You fail to end up with my earlier code. Nak. > > Well I've tried to split up your patch into small independent changes > and failed at that. And given how many changes there are in there I > simply can't merge your patch as-is. I know that it does seem to fix > some random hangs, but with massive behaviour changes like the > read-read stuff in there this could very well just be a random fluke. Nope. Try reading it again. The most invasive change is defining the order of engine/context/ppgtt/ring creation (and doing the setup/enable split). Everything else is about making a request a transaction and using that to fix bugs in our state tacking. The fundamental change, that I am going to be a stickler for, is that the request is the ring access. It defines the context, owner and interface to both the ring and the engine/scheduler. In doing so it drops the inconsistent and unmaintainable approach of introducing separate but almost duplicate code paths inside the core of GEM. > But if there's anything amiss in John's work for the plain > s/seqno/request/ change, or anything else that we absolutely need to > have then I very much want your opinion on this. But a flat outright > nak without further content isn't useful to move forward. It doesn't reduce the technical debt of execlists, which was the motivation for the changes. It even brings a breath of sanity to contexts and ppgtt as well, a massive boon. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
