2016-06-24 Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Am 24.06.2016 um 15:17 schrieb Gustavo Padovan: > > Hi Christian, > > > > 2016-06-24 Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>: > > > > > Am 23.06.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Gustavo Padovan: > > > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > This is an attempt to improve fence support on Sync File. The basic idea > > > > is to have only sync_file->fence and store all fences there, either as > > > > normal fences or fence_arrays. That way we can remove some potential > > > > duplication when using fence_array with sync_file: the duplication of the array > > > > of fences and the duplication of fence_add_callback() for all fences. > > > > > > > > Now when creating a new sync_file during the merge process sync_file_set_fence() > > > > will set sync_file->fence based on the number of fences for that sync_file. If > > > > there is more than one fence a fence_array is created. One important advantage > > > > approach is that we only add one fence callback now, no matter how many fences > > > > there are in a sync_file - the individual callbacks are added by fence_array. > > > > > > > > Two fence ops had to be created to help abstract the difference between handling > > > > fences and fences_arrays: .teardown() and .get_fences(). The former run needed > > > > on fence_array, and the latter just return a copy of all fences in the fence. > > > > I'm not so sure about adding those two, speacially .get_fences(). What do you > > > > think? > > > Clearly not a good idea to add this a fence ops, cause those are specialized > > > functions for only a certain fence implementation (the fence_array). > > Are you refering only to .get_fences()? > > That comment was only for the get_fences() operation, but the teardown() > callback looks very suspicious to me as well. > > Can you explain once more why that should be necessary? When the sync_file owner exits we need to clean up it and that means releasing the fence too, however with fence_array we can't just call fence_put() as a extra reference to array->base for each fence is held when enabling signalling. Thus we need a prior step, that I called teardown(), to remove the callback for not signaled fences and put the extra references. Another way to do this would be: if (fence_is_array(sync_file->fence)) fence_array_destroy(to_fence_array(sync_file->fence)); else fence_put(sync_file_fence); This would avoid the extra ops, maybe we should go this way. Gustavo _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
