Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] drm/i915: add SVM execbuf ioctl v10

Jesse Barnes
2016-08-15T16:33:41Z

On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 15:34 +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:48:06PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
> > >
> > > We just need to pass in an address to execute and some flags,
> > > since we
> > > don't have to worry about buffer relocation or any of the other
> > > usual
> > > stuff.  Returns a fence to be used for synchronization.
> > >
> > > v2: add a request after batch submission (Jesse)
> > > v3: add a flag for fence creation (Chris)
> > > v4: add CLOEXEC flag (Kristian)
> > >     add non-RCS ring support (Jesse)
> > > v5: update for request alloc change (Jesse)
> > > v6: new sync file interface, error paths, request breadcrumbs
> > > v7: always CLOEXEC for sync_file_install
> > > v8: rebase on new sync file api
> > > v9: rework on top of fence requests and sync_file
> > > v10: take fence ref for sync_file (Chris)
> > >      use correct flush (Chris)
> > >      limit exec on rcs
> >
> > This is incomplete, so just proof of principle?
>
> At some point of rebasing I noticed that Jesse did limit
> everything on rcs. So I just put it back.
>
> No idea yet why we would need to limit for rcs only.
>

I went back and forth; I think I did test on the BLT ring and maybe one
of the video rings and things worked on at least one platform.  But I'm
still worried about bugs...

Jesse