Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] gpu: host1x: Optionally block when acquiring
 channel
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com
References: <20171105110118.15142-1-mperttunen@nvidia.com>
 <20171105110118.15142-11-mperttunen@nvidia.com>
 <9c5676eb-ba6f-c187-29e4-7b331bd3962f@gmail.com>
 <38340901-7016-3444-5ace-64159b32f1c7@kapsi.fi>
 <1b35ec93-167b-3436-0ff2-5e2e0886aea7@gmail.com>
 <dcb8c4ef-9eb9-556f-cc96-651a50636afa@gmail.com>
 <775a2536-b225-2d96-3954-7efab6bc5c3e@gmail.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@kapsi.fi>
Message-ID: <794b713e-e4f9-0b71-d9eb-168d002ab6a2@kapsi.fi>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:10:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <775a2536-b225-2d96-3954-7efab6bc5c3e@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12.11.2017 13:23, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 11.11.2017 00:15, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 07.11.2017 18:29, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> On 07.11.2017 16:11, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>>> On 05.11.2017 19:14, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> On 05.11.2017 14:01, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>>>>>> Add an option to host1x_channel_request to interruptibly wait for a
>>>>>> free channel. This allows IOCTLs that acquire a channel to block
>>>>>> the userspace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be more optimal to request channel and block after job's pining,
>>>>> when all patching and checks are completed? Note that right now we have locking
>>>>> around submission in DRM, which I suppose should go away by making locking fine
>>>>> grained.
>>>>
>>>> That would be possible, but I don't think it should matter much since contention
>>>> here should not be the common case.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe it would be more optimal to just iterate over channels, like I
>>>>> suggested before [0]?
>>>>
>>>> Somehow I hadn't noticed this before, but this would break the invariant of
>>>> having one client/class per channel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, currently there is a weak relation of channel and clients device, but seems
>>> channels device is only used for printing dev_* messages and device could be
>>> borrowed from the channels job. I don't see any real point of hardwiring channel
>>> to a specific device or client.
>>
>> Although, it won't work with syncpoint assignment to channel.
>
> On the other hand.. it should work if one syncpoint could be assigned to
> multiple channels, couldn't it?

A syncpoint can only be mapped to a single channel, so unfortunately 
this won't work.

Mikko

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

From 1585402922002572820@xxx Wed Nov 29 12:20:47 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583223808868552366
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread