From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349DEC433DF for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6862071B for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:02:07 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0F6862071B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5D16EC26; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A866EC26 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:02:05 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: 0iscr9iCcNzl85G2d1KTW3dUjEO05VEjxwX5IIIxH+UH45V8E6eBjyQk56rN+kHA89Peooc1pG d17g9SDggOcg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9683"; a="129415564" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,358,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="129415564" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jul 2020 02:02:05 -0700 IronPort-SDR: EMl8QIFYLdtU9jXRTEuK4WyIdaM+5ZO8fiBu3VS6tea0xMw0tr+SwyR3+nTxooOpOMzl5E+RmG VHukA5oPc6IA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,358,1589266800"; d="scan'208";a="460406979" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.249.34.86]) ([10.249.34.86]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jul 2020 02:02:04 -0700 To: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org References: <20200715105004.17973-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <2bbb4568-2f73-bedc-8f3b-726bb19a62f2@linux.intel.com> <079def6f-2382-6f55-cf1a-1f3e47d32fe0@linux.intel.com> <159482443523.13728.2597038711540808670@build.alporthouse.com> <159482447053.13728.16851584647996091210@build.alporthouse.com> <1019ccaf-383e-2c45-e82f-823669607c62@linux.intel.com> <159488925648.20322.751282854542515240@build.alporthouse.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc Message-ID: <05f0e88b-400e-7833-b1fa-4462c67da76c@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:02:02 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <159488925648.20322.751282854542515240@build.alporthouse.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Reduce i915_request.lock contention for i915_request_wait X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Matthew Auld Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" 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 Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx