linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] drm: Add crtc_queue_syncobj and crtc_get

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180424174514.GB25142@phenom.ffwll.local>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:45:14 +0200
From:   Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To:     Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] drm: Add crtc_queue_syncobj and crtc_get_syncobj
 ioctls

On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 11:14:17AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:56:48PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > (This is an RFC on whether this pair of ioctls seems reasonable. The
> > code compiles, but I haven't tested it as I'm away from home this
> > weekend.)
> > 
> > I'm rewriting my implementation of the Vulkan EXT_display_control
> > extension, which provides a way to signal a Vulkan fence at vblank
> > time. I had implemented it using events, but that isn't great as the
> > Vulkan API includes the ability to wait for any of a set of fences to
> > be signaled. As the other Vulkan fences are implemented using
> > dma_fences in the kernel, and (eventually) using syncobj up in user
> > space, it seems reasonable to use syncobjs for everything and hook
> > vblank to those.
> > 
> > In any case, I'm proposing two new syncobj/vblank ioctls (the names
> > aren't great; suggestions welcome, as usual):
> > 
> > DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_QUEUE_SYNCOBJ
> > 
> > 	Create a new syncobj that will be signaled at (or after) the
> > 	specified vblank sequence value. This uses the same parameters
> > 	to specify the target sequence as
> > 	DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_QUEUE_SEQUENCE.
> 
> My understanding of drm_syncobj is that you:
> 
> - Create a syncobj with the drm_syncobj_create ioctl.
> 
> - Pass it around to various driver callbacks who update the attached
>   dma_fence pointer using drm_syncobj_replace_fence().
> 
> Yes amdgpu does this a bit differently, but that seems to be the
> exception.
> 
> From that pov I'd massage the uapi to just extend
> drm_crtc_queue_sequence_ioctl with a new syncobj flag. Syncobj we can just
> add at the bottom of struct drm_crtc_queue_sequence (drm structs can be
> extended like that, it's part of the uapi). Or we reuse user_data, but
> that's a bit a hack.
> 
> We also don't need a new event type, vblank code simply singals
> event->fence, which we'll arrange to be the fence behind the syncobj.
> 
> > DRM_IOCTL_CRTC_GET_SYNCOBJ
> > 
> > 	Once the above syncobj has been signaled, this ioctl allows
> > 	the application to find out when that happened, returning both
> > 	the vblank sequence count and time (in ns).
> 
> The android syncpt stuff already had the concept of a fence timestamp, and
> we carried it over as part of struct dma_fence.timestamp. It's just not
> exposed yet as proper uapi. I think we should aim a bit more into that
> direction with something like the below sketch:
> 
> - Add a dma_fence_signal_ts, which allows us to set the timestamp from a
>   hw clock.
> 
> - Use that in the vblank code.
> 
> - Add new drm_syncobj ioctl to query the timestamp of the attached fence
>   (if it's signalled).
> 
> That would entirely avoid the special-case ioctl just for vblank syncobj
> here. Also, this might be useful in your implementation of
> VK_GOOGLE_display_timing, since the current query timestamp you're using
> won't take into account irq wakeup latency. Using fence->timestamp will
> still miss the irq->atomic worker wakupe latency, but should be a lot
> better already.

Ok, I'm going to retract my entire suggestion above for the GET ioctl. It
would neatly work for vk_google_display_timing, but the KHR version of
that extensions very much sounds like we want the kernel to report 2 (or
maybe even 3) different timestamps back. An ioctl is much easier to extend
than shoe-horning all that into the dma_fence/drm_syncobj abstraction.

One bikeshed maybe on top: Maybe call the ioctl CRTC_GET_TS_DATA, since
that's what you're getting, not the syncobj.

Sorry for flopping around on this, just learned this all in discussions
past week.
-Daniel

> 
> > I'd like to hear comments on whether this seems reasonable, or whether
> > I should go in some other direction.
> 
> Besides a few bikesheds to align better with other stuff going around I
> think this looks good.
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch