On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:44:19AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > 2011/11/17 Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx>: > > 2011/11/17 Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On 16.11.2011 01:24, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>> > >>> Well as we don't specify on which value semaphore should wait on, i am > >>> prety sure the first ring to increment the semaphore will unblock all > >>> waiter. So if you have ring1 that want to wait on ring2 and ring3 as soon as > >>> ring2 or ring3 is done ring1 will go one while either ring2 or ring3 might > >>> not be done. I will test that tomorrow but from doc i have it seems so. Thus > >>> it will be broken with more than one ring, that would mean you have to > >>> allocate one semaphore for each ring couple you want to synchronize. Note > >>> that the usual case will likely be sync btw 2 ring. > >> > >> Good point, but I played with it a bit more today and it is just behaving as > >> I thought it would be. A single signal command will just unblock a single > >> waiter, even if there are multiple waiters currently for this semaphore, the > >> only thing you can't tell is which waiter will come first. > >> > >> I should also note that the current algorithm will just emit multiple wait > >> operations to a single ring, and spread the signal operations to all other > >> rings we are interested in. That isn't very efficient, but should indeed > >> work quite fine. > >> > >>> After retesting the first patch drm/radeon: fix debugfs handling is NAK > >>> a complete no go. > >>> > >>> Issue is that radeon_debugfs_cleanup is call after rdev is free. This > >>> is why i used a static array. I forgot about that, i should have put a > >>> comment. I guess you built your kernel without debugfs or that you > >>> didn't tested to reload the module. > >> > >> Mhm, I have tested it, seen the crash, and didn't thought that this is a > >> problem. Don't ask me why I can't understand it myself right now. > >> > >> Anyway, I moved the unregistering of the files into a separate function, > >> which is now called from radeon_device_fini instead of > >> radeon_debugfs_cleanup. That seems to work fine, at least if I haven't > >> missed something else. > >> > >> I also merged your indention fixes and the fix for the never allocated > >> semaphores and pushed the result into my public repository > >> (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux), so please take another > >> look at it. > > > > I've got a few other patches to enable further functionality in the > > mring patches. > > - per ring fence interrupts > > - add some additional ring fields to better handle different ring types > > > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/mrings/ > > > > FYI, I updated these later last night. > > Alex > Ok so reviewed the patch serie, please Christian keep v2, v3, ... informations, i find this usefull. I put updated patch at http://people.freedesktop.org/~glisse/mrings/ Couple of fixes there, indentation, and also i changed the testing parameter to be a bit flag which make our life easier when we want to only test the semaphore stuff and not the bo move. Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
