Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:51 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 20/02/2023 16:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 8:44 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > [snip] > > >> Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 16:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: [snip] Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as are not all compute contexts someone

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 15:52, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: [snip] Yeah I agree. And as not all media use cases are the same, as are not all compute contexts someone somewhere will need to run a series of

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/02/2023 15:45, Rob Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:22 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: [snip] adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines (which includes "I want it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:33 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > On

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Rob Clark
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 4:22 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > [snip] > > >>> adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines > >>> (which includes "I want it NOW" ;-)) isn't

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 17:00, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: [snip] adapted from your patches.. I think the basic idea of deadlines (which includes "I want it NOW" ;-)) isn't controversial, but the original idea got caught up in some bikeshed (what about

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 20:45, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:45 PM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:00:49AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 8:03 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 17/02/2023 14:55, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:56 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >>> > >>> In i915 we have this

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-17 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 16/02/2023 18:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost for instance to fences which are

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rob Clark
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:20 AM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rodrigo Vivi
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14:00AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > > boost > > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Rob Clark
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:19 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 14/02/2023 19:14, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > > wrote: > >> > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >> > >> In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > >> boost > >> for

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-16 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 14/02/2023 19:14, Rob Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from userspace. This has it's pros and cons

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-14 Thread Rob Clark
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:14 AM Rob Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin > wrote: > > > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority > > boost > > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC v2 0/5] Waitboost drm syncobj waits

2023-02-14 Thread Rob Clark
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 5:07 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > In i915 we have this concept of "wait boosting" where we give a priority boost > for instance to fences which are actively waited upon from userspace. This has > it's pros and cons and can certainly be discussed