Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <699f2130-11be-e0db-5f7f-ff53dc3a46fc@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 22:59:35 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] drm/virtio: Refactor job submission code path
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@collabora.com>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
        Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>,
        Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWFyZWsgT2zFocOhaw==?= <maraeo@gmail.com>,
        Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@amd.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@collabora.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
References: <20230323230755.1094832-1-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
 <20230323230755.1094832-2-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
 <ZCWre6oy0vHNyIkW@arch-x395>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZCWre6oy0vHNyIkW@arch-x395>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/30/23 18:32, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> +static int virtio_gpu_dma_fence_wait(struct virtio_gpu_submit *submit,
>> +				     struct dma_fence *fence)
>> +{
>> +	struct dma_fence_unwrap itr;
>> +	struct dma_fence *f;
>> +	int err;
>> +
>> +	dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(f, &itr, fence) {
> The dma_fence_unwrap_for_each() change should be a separate patch,
> highlighting why we want it.

Good point, it actually should be a potential optimization for the
in-fence waiting.

>> +	ret = virtio_gpu_init_submit(&submit, exbuf, dev, file,
>> +				     fence_ctx, ring_idx);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto cleanup;
>> +
>> +	ret = virtio_gpu_wait_in_fence(&submit);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		goto cleanup;
>> +
> We have reshuffled the order around in_fence waiting, out_fence install,
> handles, cmdbuf, drm events, etc. Can we get that split up a bit, with
> some comments.
> 
> If it were me, I would keep the wait_in_fence early and inline
> virtio_gpu_init_submit (the nesting/abstraction seems a bit much). This
> means one can omit the virtio_gpu_submit::exbuf all together.

I tried to inline and this variant makes code much less readable to me.

The point of having wait_in_fence after submit_init is that it makes
submit code path shorter. If we have to wait for in-fence, then once
fence signals, there is no need to init and instead move directly to a
further submission step.

Perhaps won't hurt to also factor out the wait_fence from parse_deps in
the second patch and do all the waits right before locking the buflist.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry