From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/17] dma-fence: Allow wait_any_timeout for all fences
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:35:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180430153502.GQ12521@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1df9beec-8ee4-5740-954a-a2a5dbc4fd03@amd.com>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 09:11:31AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.04.2018 um 08:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > When this was introduced in
> >
> > commit a519435a96597d8cd96123246fea4ae5a6c90b02
> > Author: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Date: Tue Oct 20 16:34:16 2015 +0200
> >
> > dma-buf/fence: add fence_wait_any_timeout function v2
> >
> > there was a restriction added that this only works if the dma-fence
> > uses the dma_fence_default_wait hook. Which works for amdgpu, which is
> > the only caller. Well, until you share some buffers with e.g. i915,
> > then you get an -EINVAL.
> >
> > But there's really no reason for this, because all drivers must
> > support callbacks. The special ->wait hook is only as an optimization;
> > if the driver needs to create a worker thread for an active callback,
> > then it can avoid to do that if it knows that there's a process
> > context available already. So ->wait is just an optimization, just
> > using the logic in dma_fence_default_wait() should work for all
> > drivers.
> >
> > Let's remove this restriction.
>
> Mhm, that was intentional introduced because for radeon that is not only an
> optimization, but mandatory for correct operation.
>
> On the other hand radeon isn't using this function, so it should be fine as
> long as the Intel driver can live with it.
Well dma-buf already requires that dma_fence_add_callback works correctly.
And so do various users of it as soon as you engage in a bit of buffer
sharing. I guess whomever cares about buffer sharing with radeon gets to
fix this (you need to spawn a kthread or whatever in ->enable_signaling
which does the same work as your optimized ->wait callback).
But yeah, I'm definitely not making things work with this series, just a
bit more obvious that there's a problem already.
-Daniel
>
> Christian.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
> > Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 5 -----
> > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > index 7b5b40d6b70e..59049375bd19 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > @@ -503,11 +503,6 @@ dma_fence_wait_any_timeout(struct dma_fence **fences, uint32_t count,
> > for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
> > struct dma_fence *fence = fences[i];
> > - if (fence->ops->wait != dma_fence_default_wait) {
> > - ret = -EINVAL;
> > - goto fence_rm_cb;
> > - }
> > -
> > cb[i].task = current;
> > if (dma_fence_add_callback(fence, &cb[i].base,
> > dma_fence_default_wait_cb)) {
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-30 15:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20180427061724.28497-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
2018-04-27 6:17 ` [PATCH 01/17] dma-fence: Some kerneldoc polish for dma-fence.h Daniel Vetter
2018-04-30 17:49 ` [Intel-gfx] " Eric Anholt
2018-05-02 7:38 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-04-27 6:17 ` [PATCH 03/17] dma-fence: Make ->enable_signaling optional Daniel Vetter
2018-04-27 6:17 ` [PATCH 04/17] dma-fence: Allow wait_any_timeout for all fences Daniel Vetter
2018-04-29 7:11 ` Christian König
2018-04-30 15:35 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2018-04-27 6:17 ` [PATCH 05/17] dma-fence: Make ->wait callback optional Daniel Vetter
2018-04-27 6:17 ` [PATCH 17/17] dma-fence: Polish kernel-doc for dma-fence.c Daniel Vetter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180430153502.GQ12521@phenom.ffwll.local \
--to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox