Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:51 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 20/02/2023 16:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:44 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > [snip] > > >> Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 16:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: [snip] Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as are not all compute contexts someone som

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: [snip] Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as are not all compute contexts someone somewhere will need to run a series of workloads

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 15:45, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:22 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: [snip] adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines (which includes "I want it NO

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:22 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > [snip] > > >>> adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines > >>> (which includes "I want it NOW" ;-)) isn't cont

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: [snip] adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines (which includes "I want it NOW" ;-)) isn't controversial, but the original idea got caught up in some bikeshed (what about com

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:45 PM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, F

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have t

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >>> > >>> In i915 we have this co

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost for instance to fences which are ac

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rob Clark
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:20 AM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > > boost > > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon f

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rob Clark
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:19 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 14/02/2023 19:14, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >> > >> In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > >> boost > >> for i

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 14/02/2023 19:14, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from userspace. This has it's pros and cons

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-14 Thread Rob Clark
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14 AM Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > > boost > > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from us

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-14 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from userspace. This has > it's pros and cons and can certainly be discussed at

[RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-10 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from userspace. This has it's pros and cons and can certainly be discussed at lenght. However fact is some workloads really like it. Problem i