From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 5/7] drm/xe: Take in-syncs into account when num_execs or num_binds == 0
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:18:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZXiV3340/iRkrcJC@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c02d0342-3b9a-7454-b9c6-c40bd0fd61ea@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 04:04:57PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>
> On 12/7/23 06:57, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Wait on in-syncs before signaling out-syncs if num_execs or num_binds ==
> > 0 in execbuf IOCTL or VM bind IOCTL respectfully.
> >
> > v2: Wait on last fence in addition to in-fences (Thomas)
> > v3: Use function for in-fence signaling
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec.c | 10 ++++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.h | 5 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++----
> > 4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Should we move patch 5/7 and 6/7 up the series to that everything works as
> expected when we enable the functionality.
>
5/6 build on 3/4, how about we squash them into a single patch?
Matt
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-12 17:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-07 5:57 [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 0/7] Syncs vs async exec/bind uAPI change Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 1/7] drm/xe: Use a flags field instead of bools for VMA create Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 2/7] drm/xe: Use a flags field instead of bools for sync parse Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 3/7] drm/xe: Allow num_binds == 0 in VM bind IOCTL Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 4/7] drm/xe: Allow num_batch_buffer == 0 in exec IOCTL Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 5/7] drm/xe: Take in-syncs into account when num_execs or num_binds == 0 Matthew Brost
2023-12-08 15:04 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-12 17:18 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 6/7] drm/xe: Add last fence as dependency for jobs on user exec queues Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 5:57 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 7/7] drm/xe/uapi: Uniform async vs sync handling Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 19:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-12-08 15:00 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-08 9:45 ` Matthew Brost
2023-12-11 15:43 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-11 16:49 ` Matthew Brost
2023-12-11 18:11 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-11 21:11 ` Matthew Brost
2023-12-12 8:43 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-08 12:24 ` Matthew Brost
2023-12-11 15:34 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-12-11 16:50 ` Matthew Brost
2023-12-07 7:38 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for Syncs vs async exec/bind uAPI change 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=ZXiV3340/iRkrcJC@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.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.