Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-17 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > > > I am still catching up, but IIUC, indeed I don't think the host needs > > > to depend on fence_id. We should be able to repurpose fence_id. > > > > I'd rather ignore it altogether for FENCE_V2 (or whatever we call the > > feature flag). > > That's fine when one assumes each virtqueue

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-17 Thread Chia-I Wu
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:44 PM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> At virtio level it is pretty simple: The host completes the SUBMIT_3D > > >> virtio command when it finished rendering, period. > > >> > > >> > > >> On the guest side we don't need the fence_id. The completion callback > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-16 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > >> At virtio level it is pretty simple: The host completes the SUBMIT_3D > >> virtio command when it finished rendering, period. > >> > >> > >> On the guest side we don't need the fence_id. The completion callback > >> gets passed the virtio_gpu_vbuffer, so it can figure which command di

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-13 Thread Chia-I Wu
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:08 PM Gurchetan Singh wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:29 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:36:16PM -0700, Gurchetan Singh wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > > I should've been

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-12 Thread Gurchetan Singh
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:29 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:36:16PM -0700, Gurchetan Singh wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal > cleanup/preparation > > > and > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-12 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 04:36:16PM -0700, Gurchetan Singh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal cleanup/preparation > > and > > > the per-context changes are invisible to host userspace. > > > > Ok, i

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-12 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > I will start with... how many timelines do we want to expose per > context? In my mind, it goes like > > V1: 1 timeline per virtqueue (there is one timeline for ctrlq right now) > V2: 1 timeline per context (VK and GL on different timelines) > V3: N timelines per context (each VkQueue in

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-12 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > Can virtqueues be added dynamically? No. > Or can we have > fixed but enough (e.g., 64) virtqueues? Well, I wouldn't bet that any specific number is enough. When gtk starts rendering using vulkan by default the number of contexts of a standard gnome desktop will be pretty high I guess

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-11 Thread Chia-I Wu
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Gurchetan Singh wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal cleanup/preparation and >> > the per-context changes are invisible to host userspace. >> >> Ok, it wasn't clea

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-11 Thread Gurchetan Singh
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal cleanup/preparation > and > > the per-context changes are invisible to host userspace. > > Ok, it wasn't clear that you don't flip the switch yet. In general the > commit message

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-11 Thread Chia-I Wu
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:36 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal cleanup/preparation and > > the per-context changes are invisible to host userspace. > > Ok, it wasn't clear that you don't flip the switch yet. In general the > commit messages

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-11 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
Hi, > I should've been more clear -- this is an internal cleanup/preparation and > the per-context changes are invisible to host userspace. Ok, it wasn't clear that you don't flip the switch yet. In general the commit messages could be a bit more verbose ... I'm wondering though why we need t

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-10 Thread Gurchetan Singh
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:43 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 06:08:10PM -0700, Gurchetan Singh wrote: > > We don't want fences from different 3D contexts/processes (GL, VK) to > > be on the same timeline. Sending this out as a RFC to solicit feedback > > on the general approach

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-10 Thread Gerd Hoffmann
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 06:08:10PM -0700, Gurchetan Singh wrote: > We don't want fences from different 3D contexts/processes (GL, VK) to > be on the same timeline. Sending this out as a RFC to solicit feedback > on the general approach. NACK. virtio fences are global, period. You can't simply ch

[RFC PATCH 0/8] *** Per context fencing ***

2020-03-09 Thread Gurchetan Singh
We don't want fences from different 3D contexts/processes (GL, VK) to be on the same timeline. Sending this out as a RFC to solicit feedback on the general approach. Gurchetan Singh (8): drm/virtio: use fence_id when processing fences drm/virtio: allocate a fence context for every 3D context