On 29.11.2017 14:18, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 29.11.2017 12:10, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
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.
Okay, in DRM we are requesting syncpoint on channels 'open' and syncpoint
assignment happens on jobs submission. So firstly submitted job will assign
syncpoint to the first channel and second job would re-assign syncpoint to a
second channel while first job is still in-progress, how is it going to work?
When a context is created, it's assigned both a syncpoint and channel
and this pair stays for as long as the context is alive (i.e. as long as
there are jobs), so even if the syncpoint is reassigned to a channel at
every submit, it is always assigned to the same channel, so nothing
breaks. Multiple contexts cannot share syncpoints so things work out.
Obviously this is not ideal as we currently never unassign syncpoints
but at least it is not broken.
Mikko
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
