On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:08:23 +0200 Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
As Daniel said using fd is most likely the way we want to do it but this remains vague.
Separating the discussion if it should be an fd or not. Using an fd sounds fine to me in general, but I have some concerns as well.
For example what was the maximum number of opened FDs per process again? Could that become a problem? etc...
You can check out the i915 patches I posted if you want to see examples. Max fds may be an issue if userspace doesn't clean up its fences. The implementation is pretty easy with the stuff Maarten has done recently.
The changes I still need to make to mine: - sit on top of Chris's request/seqno changes (driver internals really) - switch over to execbuf as the main API on the render side (like you're doing) - add support for display and other timelines
As far as compat goes, I don't think it should be too hard. Even with GPU scheduling, a given context's buffers should all be in-order with respect to one another, so we ought to be able to mix & match clients using explicit fencing and implicit fencing. Though in Mesa I still haven't looked at how to handle server vs client side arb_sync with the scheduler and explicit fencing in place; might need some extra work there...
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org