On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 01/24/2015 09:47 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin > ><tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>Could you please translate this into something understandable by newcomers? > >>:) > > > >I don't know which parts are confusing without questions so please ask > >them ... the questions below about scheduler interactions seem fairly > >advanced ;-) > > I suppose for starters, when I took over this work I read the last thread > from December. There you were saying to Jesse to convert the separate ioctl > into execbuf interface for in & out fences. > > That's what I did I thought. So is that not the fashion of the day any more > or I misunderstood something? > > People will scream very soon for something along these lines anyway since it > is kind of packaged with the scheduler I am told and both will be very much > desired soon. That's still the proper fashion imo and what I've thought I've explained ... About the screaming: The real blocker here is destaging android fences. I've been telling this to everyone for a while already, but can't hurt to reinforce ;-) > Idea is to allow submitting of work and not block in userspace rather let > the scheduler queue and shuffle depending on fences. Well that's also possible without explicit fences, but not if your userspace assumes explicit fences exist ofc. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
