Am 10.03.2017 um 00:19 schrieb Dave Airlie:
>> Completely agree, problem here is that this isn't documented like this in
>> the Vulkan specification as far as I know.
> (I'm adding dri-devel, since I think Intel folks have looked into some
> of this already,
> and we might need to make some common functionality).
>
> "The semaphore must be signaled, or have an associated semaphore
> signal operation that is
> pending execution."
>
> So I'll try and summarise the semantics of semaphores vs current fence fds.
>
> For shared semaphores there are two defined semantics: temporary and permanent,
> I think we would need to support both. temporary align with fence fd,
> but permanent not so much.
>
> The main difference I see if that fence's are a one shot thing, you
> create a fence when you submit
> it and then you give it to someone else to wait on it.
>
> Semaphores are a create once, share once, use multiple times.
>
> The semantics for permanaent semaphore sharing is:
>
> process A B
> allocate
> export
> import
> signal
> wait
> signal
> wait
>
> and so on.
>
> The way we currently to semaphores is to insert a fence into the
> semaphore on signal, and
> block waiting for that fence on wait, then insert a new one on the
> next signal. This means
> we don't want to constantly reshared the fence_fd. (The temporary
> semaphores sharing semantics
> match this behaviour).
>
> This leaves me to believe that fence fd's can't be used for this task
> as-is. Now the question is if we can
> extend them, and how we do that in a useful and backwards compatible manner.
As far as I can see the only functionality we are missing here is:
void sync_file_signal(struct sync_file *sync_file, struct dma_fence *fence)
{
dma_fence_put(sync_file->fence);
sync_file->fence = fence;
}
We probably should do this atomically, but that is only a matter of
taking locks/atomic pointer operation.
The waiting is done using the normal sync_file_get_fence() function.
The rest is David's patch to import/export the fd handle into a local
idr based handle.
>
> How would we do this, allow dma_fence to be "updated" from another
> dma_fence, so we have some sort
> of dma_fence variant that has a permanent lifetime, that we can on
> signal update from another fence
> to match it's behaviour, then on wait works on the updated info. Do we
> just want a wrapper around a fence
> then, which is pretty much what the proposed sem code is. or do we
> want some way to link a bunch
> of fences together? What we don't want is to expose to userspace
> anything that requires us to reshare the
> fence via the fd again after the initial setup.
We don't need to reshare the fd or change anything on the dma_fence
implementation, just using the sync_file as the base container should be
enough.
Christian.
>
> Dave.
