From: "Marek Olšák" <maraeo@gmail.com>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: "Michel Dänzer" <michel@daenzer.net>,
"amd-gfx mailing list" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Bas Nieuwenhuizen" <bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl>
Subject: Re: amdgpu doesn't do implicit sync, requires drivers to do it in IBs
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 12:06:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAxE2A4-5RT==eUzsO+jciucJ1t1aw+Fb=zoi9YB9q2fz1ZaSQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1adb6ee4-7472-fa3e-fd67-6e5c6668cbc3@amd.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1640 bytes --]
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:40 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
wrote:
> Am 28.05.20 um 12:06 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
> > On 2020-05-28 11:11 a.m., Christian König wrote:
> >> Well we still need implicit sync [...]
> > Yeah, this isn't about "we don't want implicit sync", it's about "amdgpu
> > doesn't ensure later jobs fully see the effects of previous implicitly
> > synced jobs", requiring userspace to do pessimistic flushing.
>
> Yes, exactly that.
>
> For the background: We also do this flushing for explicit syncs. And
> when this was implemented 2-3 years ago we first did the flushing for
> implicit sync as well.
>
> That was immediately reverted and then implemented differently because
> it caused severe performance problems in some use cases.
>
> I'm not sure of the root cause of this performance problems. My
> assumption was always that we then insert to many pipeline syncs, but
> Marek doesn't seem to think it could be that.
>
> On the one hand I'm rather keen to remove the extra handling and just
> always use the explicit handling for everything because it simplifies
> the kernel code quite a bit. On the other hand I don't want to run into
> this performance problem again.
>
> Additional to that what the kernel does is a "full" pipeline sync, e.g.
> we busy wait for the full hardware pipeline to drain. That might be
> overkill if you just want to do some flushing so that the next shader
> sees the stuff written, but I'm not an expert on that.
>
Do we busy-wait on the CPU or in WAIT_REG_MEM?
WAIT_REG_MEM is what UMDs do and should be faster.
Marek
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2139 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 154 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-28 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-25 22:05 amdgpu doesn't do implicit sync, requires drivers to do it in IBs Marek Olšák
2020-05-25 22:07 ` Marek Olšák
2020-05-28 9:11 ` Christian König
2020-05-28 10:06 ` Michel Dänzer
2020-05-28 14:39 ` Christian König
2020-05-28 16:06 ` Marek Olšák [this message]
2020-05-28 18:12 ` Christian König
2020-05-28 19:35 ` Marek Olšák
2020-05-29 9:05 ` Christian König
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAAxE2A4-5RT==eUzsO+jciucJ1t1aw+Fb=zoi9YB9q2fz1ZaSQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=maraeo@gmail.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=bas@basnieuwenhuizen.nl \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=michel@daenzer.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.