My only concern is that this becomes UAPI as soon as we increase the
minor number.
So if we find that this has some negative side effects we can never go
back again.
But the choice is up to you guys, from my side it is perfectly good to go.
Christian.
Am 11.06.20 um 14:13 schrieb Chunming Zhou:
I didn't check the patch details, if it is for existing implicit sync
of shared buffer, feel free go ahead.
But if you add some description for its usage, that will be more clear
to others.
-David
在 2020/6/11 15:19, Marek Olšák 写道:
Hi David,
Explicit sync has nothing to do with this. This is for implicit sync,
which is required by DRI3. This fix allows removing existing
inefficiencies from drivers, so it's a good thing.
Marek
On Wed., Jun. 10, 2020, 03:56 Chunming Zhou, <zhou...@amd.com
<mailto:zhou...@amd.com>> wrote:
在 2020/6/10 15:41, Christian König 写道:
That's true, but for now we are stuck with the implicit sync for
quite a number of use cases.
My problem is rather that we already tried this and it backfired
immediately.
I do remember that it was your patch who introduced the pipeline
sync flag handling and I warned that this could be problematic.
You then came back with a QA result saying that this is indeed
causing a huge performance drop in one test case and we need to
do something else. Together we then came up with the different
handling between implicit and explicit sync.
Isn't pipeline sync flag to fix some issue because of parralel
execution between jobs in one pipeline? I really don't have this
memory in mind why that's realted to this, Or do you mean extra
sync hides many other potential issues?
Anyway, when I go through Vulkan WSI code, the synchronization
isn't so smooth between OS window system. And when I saw Jason
drives explicit sync through the whole Linux ecosystem like
Android window system does, I feel that's really a good direction.
-David
But I can't find that stupid mail thread any more. I knew that
it was a couple of years ago when we started with the explicit
sync for Vulkan.
Christian.
Am 10.06.20 um 08:29 schrieb Zhou, David(ChunMing):
[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
Not sue if this is right direction, I think usermode wants all
synchronizations to be explicit. Implicit sync often confuses
people who don’t know its history. I remember Jason from Intel
is driving explicit synchronization through the Linux
ecosystem, which even removes implicit sync of shared buffer.
-David
*From:* amd-gfx <amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org>
<mailto:amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> *On Behalf Of
*Marek Olšák
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:58 PM
*To:* amd-gfx mailing list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
<mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
*Subject:* [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: remove distinction between
explicit and implicit sync (v2)
Hi,
This enables a full pipeline sync for implicit sync. It's
Christian's patch with the driver version bumped. With this,
user mode drivers don't have to wait for idle at the end of gfx
IBs.
Any concerns?
Thanks,
Marek
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7CDavid1.Zhou%40amd.com%7C0d3096fc043f4443f14e08d80dd7c674%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637274567683552668&sdata=xIHDswGRsdCP%2BE7MRI4nKXdoMgV2LBzFPP46zGpQusk%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
