Include request for reset-rework branch v4

[Jerome Glisse]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> On 02.05.2012 18:01, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Christian König<deathsimple at vodafone.de>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> there still seems to be the need for some further discussion about the SA
>>> code,
>>> so I again split that out of the patchset and tested the result a bit.
>>>
>>> Most of the stuff still works fine without those offending changes, so to
>>> avoid
>>> mailing around unrelated and already reviewed patches, I request the
>>> include
>>> the following 17 patches into drm-next.
>>>
>>> If you prefer to merge they are also available from
>>> git://people.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux branch reset-rework.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>> I am ok with this 17 patchset, i just sent 3 patch on top of those 17 that
>> bring back some other of the previous cleanup.
>
> At least for now those three are NAK, cause I just realized we need to put
> those on top of a more sophisticated fence implementation.
>
> Your idea of not using a list, but 64 bit sequences instead actually sounds
> quite nifty to me. Going to hack something together in the next couple of
> hours.
>
> Christian.

Btw you said that you are having issue when using multiple ring, it
comes to my attention that you never sync with the GFX ring (unless
asked by userspace) that's wrong, before scheduling on another ring
than GFX index you need to emit semaphore to make the ring wait for
the last emited fence on the GFX ring because of ttm. What might
happen is that ttm scheduled bo move on the GFX ring and that the ring
you work on start using those bo at there soon to be GPU offset while
the bo data is not there yet.

Cheers,
Jerome