Message-ID: <53CE84AA.9030703@amd.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:35:06 +0200
From:	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Christian König 
	<deathsimple@...afone.de>
CC:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
	Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
	nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
	"Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 09/17] drm/radeon: use common fence implementation
 for fences

Am 22.07.2014 17:17, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Christian König
> <deathsimple@...afone.de> wrote:
>>> Would that be something you can agree to?
>>
>> No, the whole enable_signaling stuff should go away. No callback from the
>> driver into the fence code, only the other way around.
>>
>> fence->signaled as well as fence->wait should become mandatory and only
>> called from process context without holding any locks, neither atomic nor
>> any mutex/semaphore (rcu might be ok).
> So for the enable_signaling, that's optional already. It's only for
> drivers that don't want to keep interrupts enabled all the time. You
> can opt out of that easily.
>
> Wrt holding no locks at all while calling into any fence functions,
> that's just not going to work out. The point here is to make different
> drivers work together and we can rework all the ttm and i915 code to
> work locklessly in all cases where they need to wait for someone to
> complete rendering. Or at least I don't think that's feasible. So if
> you insist that no one might call into radeon code then we simply need
> to exclude radeon from participating in any shared fencing. But that's
> a bit pointless.
>
>>> Like I've said I think restricting the insanity other people are willing
>>> to live with just because you don't like it isn't right. But it is
>>> certainly right for you to insist on not being forced into any such
>>> design. I think the above would achieve this.
>>
>> I don't think so. If it's just me I would say that I'm just to cautious and
>> the idea is still save to apply to the whole kernel.
>>
>> But since Dave, Jerome and Ben seems to have similar concerns I think we
>> need to agree to a minimum and save interface for all drivers.
> Well I haven't yet seen a proposal that actually works.

How about this:

Drivers exporting fences need to provide a fence->signaled and a 
fence->wait function, everything else like fence->enable_signaling or 
calling fence_signaled() from the driver is optional.

Drivers wanting to use exported fences don't call fence->signaled or 
fence->wait in atomic or interrupt context, and not with holding any 
global locking primitives (like mmap_sem etc...). Holding locking 
primitives local to the driver is ok, as long as they don't conflict 
with anything possible used by their own fence implementation.

Christian.

>   From an intel
> pov I don't care that much since we don't care about desktop prime, so
> if radeon/nouveau don't want to do that, meh. Imo the design as-is is
> fairly sound, and as simple as it can get given the requirements. I
> haven't heard an  argument convincing me otherwise, so I guess we
> won't have prime support on linux that actually works, ever.
> -Daniel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists