Re: [Intel-gfx] [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v4 03/18] drm/sched: Add dependency tracking

From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: "Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>,
	Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1@amd.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Melissa Wen <melissa.srw@gmail.com>,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.aiemd@gmail.com>,
	"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
	<linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>,
	Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@amd.com>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH v4 03/18] drm/sched: Add dependency tracking
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:46:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d29f1a30-01d0-6cce-1acd-75bdfcc6045c@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uE7GBZYih=KZm5t7-_0P8i7M0tA2KgSOgJsm+-HUE+HzA@mail.gmail.com>

Am 28.07.21 um 14:09 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:29 PM Christian König
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 27.07.21 um 13:09 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> Adding a few more people to this bikeshed.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:02 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> @@ -349,6 +367,13 @@ int drm_sched_job_init(struct drm_sched_job *job,
>>>>                          struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
>>>>                          void *owner);
>>>>    void drm_sched_job_arm(struct drm_sched_job *job);
>>>> +int drm_sched_job_await_fence(struct drm_sched_job *job,
>>>> +                             struct dma_fence *fence);
>>>> +int drm_sched_job_await_implicit(struct drm_sched_job *job,
>>>> +                                struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>>>> +                                bool write);
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>> I'm still waiting on the paint delivery for these two functions so I
>>> can finish this shed.
>> Well I wouldn't call that bike shedding, good names are important.
>>
>> Just imaging we would have called the exclusive-fence write-fence instead.
> Sure naming matters, but at least to my English understanding there's
> not a semantic different between telling something to await for
> something else (i.e. add a dependency) or to tell something to add a
> dependency (i.e. await that thing later on before you start doing your
> own thing).

To be honest I had to google what await means when you first mentioned 
it because I didn't had that in my English vocabulary.

(But I have to note that my English education is basically non-existent. 
I speak German and a good bunch of Dutch and just interfere most of the 
words).

Regards,
Christian.

> Exclusive vs write fence otoh is a pretty big difference in what it means.
>
> But also if there's consensus that I'm wrong then I'm happy to pick
> the more preferred of the two options I deem equivalent.
>
>> What speaks against calling them add_dependency() and
>> _add_implicit_depencencies() ?
> Nothing. I just like another ack on this before I rename it all. Also
> I wasnt sure what you'd want to name the implicit dependency thing.
>
> Lucas, Boris, Melissa, any acks here?
> -Daniel
>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>> Thanks, Daniel
>>>
>>>>    void drm_sched_entity_modify_sched(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
>>>>                                       struct drm_gpu_scheduler **sched_list,
>>>>                                       unsigned int num_sched_list);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.32.0
>>>>
>

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx