Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v3 1/3] drm/doc/rfc: VM_BIND feature design document

[Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 05:25:49PM +0300, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> On 17/05/2022 21:32, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
> > +VM_BIND/UNBIND ioctl will immediately start binding/unbinding the mapping in an
> > +async worker. The binding and unbinding will work like a special GPU engine.
> > +The binding and unbinding operations are serialized and will wait on specified
> > +input fences before the operation and will signal the output fences upon the
> > +completion of the operation. Due to serialization, completion of an operation
> > +will also indicate that all previous operations are also complete.
> 
> I guess we should avoid saying "will immediately start binding/unbinding" if
> there are fences involved.
> 
> And the fact that it's happening in an async worker seem to imply it's not
> immediate.
> 
> 
> I have a question on the behavior of the bind operation when no input fence
> is provided. Let say I do :
> 
> VM_BIND (out_fence=fence1)
> 
> VM_BIND (out_fence=fence2)
> 
> VM_BIND (out_fence=fence3)
> 
> 
> In what order are the fences going to be signaled?
> 
> In the order of VM_BIND ioctls? Or out of order?
> 
> Because you wrote "serialized I assume it's : in order
> 
> 
> One thing I didn't realize is that because we only get one "VM_BIND" engine,
> there is a disconnect from the Vulkan specification.
> 
> In Vulkan VM_BIND operations are serialized but per engine.
> 
> So you could have something like this :
> 
> VM_BIND (engine=rcs0, in_fence=fence1, out_fence=fence2)
> 
> VM_BIND (engine=ccs0, in_fence=fence3, out_fence=fence4)
> 

Question - let's say this done after the above operations:

EXEC (engine=ccs0, in_fence=NULL, out_fence=NULL)

Is the exec ordered with respected to bind (i.e. would fence3 & 4 be
signaled before the exec starts)?

Matt

> 
> fence1 is not signaled
> 
> fence3 is signaled
> 
> So the second VM_BIND will proceed before the first VM_BIND.
> 
> 
> I guess we can deal with that scenario in userspace by doing the wait
> ourselves in one thread per engines.
> 
> But then it makes the VM_BIND input fences useless.
> 
> 
> Daniel : what do you think? Should be rework this or just deal with wait
> fences in userspace?
> 
> 
> Sorry I noticed this late.
> 
> 
> -Lionel
> 
>