MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uG85KV94PTqkzvY8RPxg6ApRKHVZrD20e48GHZM=s06=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140709093124.11354.3774.stgit@patser>
	<53CE6AFA.1060807@vodafone.de>
	<CAKMK7uG1d31zU_i__wc+Yq46A0x0tPeKnMBs+NHSmHS82uMsXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CE84AA.9030703@amd.com>
	<CAKMK7uFa8vMBV9_JenbFGnFXtV_r9dk=WjbMkkCDWcauhrDdJg@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CE8A57.2000803@vodafone.de>
	<53CF58FB.8070609@canonical.com>
	<53CF5B9F.1050800@amd.com>
	<53CF5EFE.6070307@canonical.com>
	<53CF63C2.7070407@vodafone.de>
	<CAKMK7uGJj+UwcnnzA+fj_=uWPN3i0sneWkoD+wfPJ_8Q6Y-DQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF6622.6060803@amd.com>
	<53CF699D.9070902@canonical.com>
	<53CF6B18.5070107@vodafone.de>
	<CAKMK7uGd65HR11thcv8KjDw-RnTa7W-QGOzFGFd+oO_hp8wyHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF7035.2060808@amd.com>
	<53CF7191.2090008@canonical.com>
	<CAKMK7uGLqzePAREsWhX0D1oN4FdqKwPgAL6x8sULpJSqYH5LwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF765E.7020802@vodafone.de>
	<CAKMK7uE1G-EjbJ2RAXC3ZfkaCo=Gber5PJuRG623Yoz9D=FmGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF8010.9060809@amd.com>
	<CAKMK7uEowhvc+4Jc6t2NAeE1joFaohJ6cP7sU-Akut6b3ta=1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CF822E.7050601@amd.com>
	<CAKMK7uG85KV94PTqkzvY8RPxg6ApRKHVZrD20e48GHZM=s06=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:44:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uHEgdU+Uz-OnRGvT_wFjOXHpZmgZcrORsBrST_MY5_ADA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 09/17] drm/radeon: use common fence
 implementation for fences
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= <deathsimple@vodafone.de>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
        nouveau <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> The scheduler needs to keep track of a lot of fences, so I think we'll
> have to register callbacks, not a simple wait function. We must keep
> track of all the non-i915 fences for all oustanding batches. Also, the
> scheduler doesn't eliminate the hw queue, only keep it much slower so
> that we can sneak in higher priority things.
>
> Really, scheduler or not is orthogonal.

Also see my other comment about interactions between wait_fence and
the i915 reset logic. We can't actually use it from within the
scheduler code since that would deadlock.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/