Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754530Ab2HKTjh (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:39:37 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:44927 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752570Ab2HKTjf (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:39:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:39:54 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: Rob Clark , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH 2/4] dma-fence: dma-buf synchronization (v8 ) Message-ID: <20120811193954.GC5132@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Maarten Lankhorst , Rob Clark , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20120810145728.5490.44707.stgit@patser.local> <20120810145750.5490.5639.stgit@patser.local> <20120810202916.GI5738@phenom.ffwll.local> <502681AE.9030507@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <502681AE.9030507@canonical.com> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 3.4.0-rc3+ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7065 Lines: 156 On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 06:00:46PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 11-08-12 17:14, Rob Clark schreef: > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> +/** > >>> + * dma_fence_signal - signal completion of a fence > >>> + * @fence: the fence to signal > >>> + * > >>> + * All registered callbacks will be called directly (synchronously) and > >>> + * all blocked waters will be awoken. This should be always be called on > >>> + * software only fences, or alternatively be called after > >>> + * dma_fence_ops::enable_signaling is called. > >> I think we need to be cleare here when dma_fence_signal can be called: > >> - for a sw-only fence (i.e. created with dma_fence_create) > >> dma_fence_signal _must_ be called under all circumstances. > >> - for any other fences, dma_fence_signal may be called, but it _must_ be > >> called once the ->enable_signalling func has been called and return 0 > >> (i.e. success). > >> - it may be called only _once_. > > As we discussed on irc it might be beneficial to be able to have it called > twice, the second time would be a noop, however. Agreed. [snip] > >>> + /* At this point, if enable_signaling returns any error > >>> + * a wakeup has to be performanced regardless. > >>> + * -ENOENT signals fence was already signaled. Any other error > >>> + * inidicates a catastrophic hardware error. > >>> + * > >>> + * If any hardware error occurs, nothing can be done against > >>> + * it, so it's treated like the fence was already signaled. > >>> + * No synchronization can be performed, so we have to assume > >>> + * the fence was already signaled. > >>> + */ > >>> + ret = fence->ops->enable_signaling(fence); > >>> + if (ret) { > >>> + signaled = true; > >>> + dma_fence_signal(fence); > >> I think we should call dma_fence_signal only for -ENOENT and pass all > >> other errors back as-is. E.g. on -ENOMEM or so we might want to retry ... > > Also discussed on irc, boolean might be a better solution until we start dealing with > hardware on fire. :) This would however likely be dealt in the same way as signaling, > however. Agreed. [snip] > >>> + > >>> + if (!ret) { > >>> + cb->base.flags = 0; > >>> + cb->base.func = __dma_fence_wake_func; > >>> + cb->base.private = priv; > >>> + cb->fence = fence; > >>> + cb->func = func; > >>> + __add_wait_queue(&fence->event_queue, &cb->base); > >>> + } > >>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags); > >>> + > >>> + return ret; > >>> +} > >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_add_callback); > >> I think for api completenes we should also have a > >> dma_fence_remove_callback function. > > We did originally but Maarten found it was difficult to deal with > > properly when the gpu's hang. I think his alternative was just to > > require the hung driver to signal the fence. I had kicked around the > > idea of a dma_fence_cancel() alternative to signal that could pass an > > error thru to the waiting driver.. although not sure if the other > > driver could really do anything differently at that point. > > No, there is a very real reason I removed dma_fence_remove_callback. It is > absolutely non-trivial to cancel it once added, since you have to deal with > all kinds of race conditions.. See i915_gem_reset_requests in my git tree: > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mlankhorst/linux/commit/?id=673c4b2550bc63ec134bca47a95dabd617a689ce I don't see the point in that code ... Why can't we drop the kref _outside_ of the critical section protected by event_queue_lock? Then you pretty much have an open-coded version of dma_fence_callback_cancel in there. > This is the only way to do it completely deadlock/memory corruption free > since you essentially have a locking inversion to avoid. I had it wrong > the first 2 times too, even when I knew about a lot of the locking > complications. If you want to do it, in most cases it will likely be easier > to just eat the signal and ignore it instead of canceling. > > >>> + > >>> +/** > >>> + * dma_fence_wait - wait for a fence to be signaled > >>> + * > >>> + * @fence: [in] The fence to wait on > >>> + * @intr: [in] if true, do an interruptible wait > >>> + * @timeout: [in] absolute time for timeout, in jiffies. > >> I don't quite like this, I think we should keep the styl of all other > >> wait_*_timeout functions and pass the arg as timeout in jiffies (and also > >> the same return semantics). Otherwise well have funny code that needs to > >> handle return values differently depending upon whether it waits upon a > >> dma_fence or a native object (where it would us the wait_*_timeout > >> functions directly). > > We did start out this way, but there was an ugly jiffies roll-over > > problem that was difficult to deal with properly. Using an absolute > > time avoided the problem. > Yeah, this makes it easier to wait on multiple fences, instead of > resetting the timeout over and over and over again, or manually > recalculating. I don't see how updating the jiffies_left timeout is that onerous, and in any case we can easily wrap that up into a little helper function, passing in an array of dma_fence pointers. Creating interfaces that differ from established kernel api patterns otoh isn't good imo. I.e. I want dma_fence_wait_bla to be a drop-in replacement for the corresponding wait_event_bla function/macro, which the same semantics for the timeout and return values. Differing in such things only leads to confusion when reading patches imo. > >> Also, I think we should add the non-_timeout variants, too, just for > >> completeness. > Would it be ok if timeout == 0 is special, then? See above ;-) [snip] > >>> +struct dma_fence_ops { > >>> + int (*enable_signaling)(struct dma_fence *fence); > >> I think we should mandate that enable_signalling can be called from atomic > >> context, but not irq context (since I don't see a use-case for calling > >> this from irq context). > > What would not having this called from irq context get you? I do agree > that you would be crazy to do so, but not sure why we should restrict it. If we allow ->enable_signalling to be called from irq context, all spinlocks the driver grabs need to be irq safe. If we disallow this I guess some drivers could easily get by with plain spinlocks. And since we both agree that it would be crazy to call ->enable_signalling from irq context, I think we should bake this constrain into the interface. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/