From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prime_self_import: Assure no pending requests before object counting
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:44:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131101184440.GA3866@bwidawsk.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131101184259.GQ4167@phenom.ffwll.local>
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 07:42:59PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:18:51AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:08:17PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 12:53:42PM +0000, oscar.mateo@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > We don't want a previously used object to be freed in the middle of a
> > > > before/after object counting operation (or we would get a "-1 objects
> > > > leaked" message). We have seen this happening, e.g., when a context
> > > > from a previous run dies, but its backing object is alive waiting for
> > > > a retire_work to kick in.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> > >
> > > Nice catch. Should we do this in general as part of our gem_quiescent_gpu
> > > helper? All i-g-t testcase are written under the assumption that they
> > > completel own the gpu and that the gtt is completely empty besides the few
> > > driver-allocated and pinned objects. So trying really hard to get rid of
> > > any residual stuff sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > I was going to address this in the other mail thread.... in any case, I
> > think not. I believe a separate helper is the way to go, and we should
> > only call it when we absolutely want to.
> >
> > Though it's not the intention, I've seen many tests fail because of
> > previous state, and I don't want to miss out on those in the future. It
> > would also slow down the run unnecessarily further.
>
> We already do rather eregious stuff in quiescent. So I want hard numbers
> on your claim that it slows down stuff further - there really shouldn't be
> much at all to retire/evict.
> -Daniel
I don't like any of those arbitrary calls to quiescent either fwiw.
Can't I make the same demand for data BEFORE we merge the patch that it
doesn't slow anything down?
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-01 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-01 12:53 [PATCH] prime_self_import: Assure no pending requests before object counting oscar.mateo
2013-11-01 16:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-01 16:18 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-11-01 18:42 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-01 18:44 ` Ben Widawsky [this message]
2013-11-01 18:47 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-01 18:52 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-11-01 19:07 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-04 16:45 ` Mateo Lozano, Oscar
2013-11-04 17:13 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-04 17:26 ` Mateo Lozano, Oscar
2013-11-04 17:43 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-11-01 16:16 ` Ben Widawsky
2013-11-01 16:22 ` Damien Lespiau
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=20131101184440.GA3866@bwidawsk.net \
--to=ben@bwidawsk.net \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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