All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:02:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <05f0e88b-400e-7833-b1fa-4462c67da76c@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <159488925648.20322.751282854542515240@build.alporthouse.com>


On 16/07/2020 09:47, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-16 09:41:17)
>> Right I missed dma_fence_is_signaled calls i915_request_completed.
>>
>> In this case the remaining question is do we care about wait ioctl
>> potentially returning before the hypothetical sync fence for the same
>> request is signaled? This seems like a slight change in user observable
>> behaviour.
> 
> You would not be able to observe the difference after wakeup in state
> between a sync_file and busy_ioctl/wait_ioctl, as a query after wakeup
> will see the same signaled bit. So the only possible difference is a
> change in wakeup order; but process wakeup/execution order is definitely
> not defined by us :)

Doh.. true, same vfunc..

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-16  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-15 10:50 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait Chris Wilson
2020-07-15 12:06 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-07-15 12:26   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-07-15 14:47     ` Chris Wilson
2020-07-15 14:47       ` Chris Wilson
2020-07-16  8:41         ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-07-16  8:47           ` Chris Wilson
2020-07-16  9:02             ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2020-07-15 12:12 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: warning for " Patchwork
2020-07-15 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2020-07-15 16:11 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=05f0e88b-400e-7833-b1fa-4462c67da76c@linux.intel.com \
    --to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.