On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:29 PM Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 12:20, Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM Alyssa Rosenzweig <aly...@rosenzweig.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Why aren't we using regular dma-buf fences here? The submit ioctl > > > > should be able to take a number of in fences to wait on and return an > > > > out fence if requested. > > > > > > Ah-ha, that sounds like the "proper" approach for mainline. Much of this > > > was (incorrectly) inherited from the Arm driver. Thank you for the > > > pointer. > > > > I'm not sure - I mean, the submit should take in/out fences, but the > > atom mechanism here sounds more like it's for declaring the > > dependencies between multiple batches in a renderpass/frame to allow > > the kernel to shcedule them? The sync fd may be a little to heavy > > handed for that, and if you want to express that kind of dependency to > > allow the kernel to reschedule, maybe we need both? > > You should more likely be using syncobjects, not fences. > > You can convert syncobjs to fences, but fences consume an fd which you > only really want if inter-device.
Fence fd's are also required for passing through protocol for explicit synchronization. > > Dave. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
