[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <203505dc-7b75-1135-587e-cc6e88ade8cd@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 17:21:19 +0100
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>
Cc: Bas Nieuwenhuizen <bas@...nieuwenhuizen.nl>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Jesse Hall <jessehall@...gle.com>,
James Jones <jajones@...dia.com>,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
Kristian Høgsberg <hoegsberg@...gle.com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Maling list - DRI developers
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: dma-buf: Add an API for importing and exporting sync
files
Am 05.03.20 um 16:54 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:06 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>> Well as far as I can see this won't work because it would break the
>> semantics of the timeline sync.
> I'm not 100% convinced it has to. We already have support for the
> seqno regressing and we ensure that we still wait for all the fences.
> I thought maybe we could use that but I haven't spent enough time
> looking at the details to be sure. I may be missing something.
That won't work. The seqno regression works by punishing userspace for
doing something stupid and undefined.
Be we can't do that under normal circumstances.
>> I can prototype that if you want, shouldn't be more than a few hours of
>> hacking anyway.
> If you'd like to, go for it. I'd be happy to give it a go as well but
> if you already know what you want, it may be easier for you to just
> write the patch for the cursor.
Send you two patches for that a few minutes ago. But keep in mind that
those are completely untested.
> Two more questions:
>
> 1. Do you want this collapsing to happen every time we create a
> dma_fence_array or should it be a special entrypoint? Collapsing all
> the time likely means doing extra array calculations instead of the
> dma_fence_array taking ownership of the array that's passed in. My
> gut says that cost is ok; but my gut doesn't spend much time in kernel
> space.
In my prototype implementation that is a dma_resv function you call and
get either a single fence or a dma_fence_array with the collapsed fences
in return.
But I wouldn't add that to the general dma_fence_array_init function
since this is still a rather special case. Well see the patches, they
should be pretty self explaining.
> 2. When we do the collapsing, should we call dma_fence_is_signaled()
> to avoid adding signaled fences to the array? It seems like avoiding
> adding references to fences that are already signaled would let the
> kernel clean them up faster and reduce the likelihood that a fence
> will hang around forever because it keeps getting added to arrays with
> other unsignaled fences.
I think so. Can't think of a good reason why we would want to add
already signaled fences to the array.
Christian.
>
> --Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists