Hi Lionel,
Well could you describe once more what the problem is?
Cause I don't fully understand why a rather normal tandem submission with two
semaphores should fail in any way.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 02.08.2019 06:28 schrieb Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com>:
There aren't CTS tests covering the issue I was mentioning.
But we could add them.
I don't have all the details regarding your implementation but even with
the "semaphore thread", I could see it running into the same issues.
What if a mix of binary & timeline semaphores are handed to vkQueueSubmit()?
For example with queueA & queueB from 2 different VkDevice :
vkQueueSubmit(queueA, signal semA);
vkQueueSubmit(queueA, wait on [semA, timelineSemB]); with
timelineSemB triggering a wait before signal.
vkQueueSubmit(queueB, signal semA);
-Lionel
On 02/08/2019 06:18, Zhou, David(ChunMing) wrote:
> Hi Lionel,
>
> By the Queue thread is a heavy thread, which is always resident in driver
> during application running, our guys don't like that. So we switch to
> Semaphore Thread, only when waitBeforeSignal of timeline happens, we spawn a
> thread to handle that wait. So we don't have your this issue.
> By the way, I already pass all your CTS cases for now. I suggest you to
> switch to Semaphore Thread instead of Queue Thread as well. It works very
> well.
>
> -David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 4:52 AM
> To: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>; Koenig, Christian
> <christian.koe...@amd.com>; Zhou, David(ChunMing) <david1.z...@amd.com>;
> Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> Subject: Threaded submission & semaphore sharing
>
> Hi Christian, David,
>
> Sorry to report this so late in the process, but I think we found an issue
> not directly related to syncobj timelines themselves but with a side effect
> of the threaded submissions.
>
> Essentially we're failing a test in crucible :
> func.sync.semaphore-fd.opaque-fd
> This test create a single binary semaphore, shares it between 2
> VkDevice/VkQueue.
> Then in a loop it proceeds to submit workload alternating between the 2
> VkQueue with one submit depending on the other.
> It does so by waiting on the VkSemaphore signaled in the previous iteration
> and resignaling it.
>
> The problem for us is that once things are dispatched to the submission
> thread, the ordering of the submission is lost.
> Because we have 2 devices and they both have their own submission thread.
>
> Jason suggested that we reestablish the ordering by having
> semaphores/syncobjs carry an additional uint64_t payload.
> This 64bit integer would represent be an identifier that submission threads
> will WAIT_FOR_AVAILABLE on.
>
> The scenario would look like this :
> - vkQueueSubmit(queueA, signal on semA);
> - in the caller thread, this would increment the syncobj additional
> u64 payload and return it to userspace.
> - at some point the submission thread of queueA submits the
> workload and signal the syncobj of semA with value returned in the caller
> thread of vkQueueSubmit().
> - vkQueueSubmit(queueB, wait on semA);
> - in the caller thread, this would read the syncobj additional
> u64 payload
> - at some point the submission thread of queueB will try to submit
> the work, but first it will WAIT_FOR_AVAILABLE the u64 value returned in the
> step above
>
> Because we want the binary semaphores to be shared across processes and would
> like this to remain a single FD, the simplest location to store this
> additional u64 payload would be the DRM syncobj.
> It would need an additional ioctl to read & increment the value.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Lionel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
