linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/10] gpu: host1x: Optionally block when acquiring channel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:23:42 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] gpu: host1x: Optionally block when acquiring
 channel

On 11.11.2017 00:15, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 07.11.2017 18:29, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 07.11.2017 16:11, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>> On 05.11.2017 19:14, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.2017 14:01, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>>>> Add an option to host1x_channel_request to interruptibly wait for a
>>>>> free channel. This allows IOCTLs that acquire a channel to block
>>>>> the userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be more optimal to request channel and block after job's pining,
>>>> when all patching and checks are completed? Note that right now we have locking
>>>> around submission in DRM, which I suppose should go away by making locking fine
>>>> grained.
>>>
>>> That would be possible, but I don't think it should matter much since contention
>>> here should not be the common case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe it would be more optimal to just iterate over channels, like I
>>>> suggested before [0]?
>>>
>>> Somehow I hadn't noticed this before, but this would break the invariant of
>>> having one client/class per channel.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, currently there is a weak relation of channel and clients device, but seems
>> channels device is only used for printing dev_* messages and device could be
>> borrowed from the channels job. I don't see any real point of hardwiring channel
>> to a specific device or client.
> 
> Although, it won't work with syncpoint assignment to channel.

On the other hand.. it should work if one syncpoint could be assigned to
multiple channels, couldn't it?