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
next prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox