Quoting Rodrigo Siqueira (2018-07-05 17:28:20) > Hi and thanks for all the feedback, I will work on the suggestions you sent, > but I have some doubts: > > On 07/05, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2018-07-05 09:20:13) > > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 12:48:43AM -0300, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote: > > > > + ktime_t current_timestamp; > > > > + > > > > + hrtimer_init(&out->vblank_hrtimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL); > > > > > > Can't we use absolute timer mode here? That avoids all the timestampt > > > computations. > > > > Where's your absolute timestamp being computed? > > I did not understand the question. hrtimer_forward_now calculates the > absolute timestamp from the relative value provided, this is what I am > using. In any case, it would be easy to switch to absolute mode, but > the code would not be smaller (or larger). It was a question to Daniel, trying to illustrate that REL is just a convenience in the htrimer api over ABS. > > What's being done is recomputing what hrtimer already knows given a > > relative interval. output->expires should be equivalent to > > hrtimer->expires, and a lot of this code evaporates. > > Indeed, output->expires can be removed; as for the rest of the code, that > depends on the answer to question 2 below. > > I have two questions: > > 1. The timestamp that is returned to userspace is (A) the timestamp when the > interrupt was actually handled, allowing applications to detect when there > is some irregularities in the interrupt handling timing, or (B) the timestamp > when the current interrupt was *scheduled* to happen, allowing applications > to detect overruns but not variations in the interrupt handling timing? When the previous hrtimer actually occurred rolled back to the actual start of frame, i.e. hrtimer_forward_now(hrtimer, vblank_interval); output->last_vblank_timestamp = ktime_sub(hrtimer->expires, vblank_interval); userspace is mainly oblivious to the delivery latency (although it can measure it as clock_gettim() - vblank->timestamp), but is concerned about knowing what the current and next vblank HW timing will be. > 2. If I use hrtimer with a period of 1s and return HRTIMER_RESTART, will I > be called back (A) 1s after the previous iteration was *scheduled to start* > (i.e., I will actually be called back at regular intervals, so that after > 1,000 iterations approximately 1,000s have elapsed) or (B) 1s after the > previous iteration *ended* (i.e., I will be called back at intervals of > 1s + the average processing time of the function, so that after 1,000 > iterations significantly more than 1,000s have elapsed)? No. When you get callback is controlled by the value you set in hrtimer->expires before you return RESTART. All RESTART does is immediately requeue the hrtimer, but more efficiently than calling hrtimer_start yourself. It is the call to hrtimer_forward that computes the next absolute hrtimer->expires based on the current time and your vblank interval. > The code I wrote assumes the answer to both questions is (B). If the > answer to the second question is A, the code can indeed be made much > simpler; if the answer to the first question is A, I have not been able > to keep timing within the expected strict limits of the IGT test in a VM > (maybe on physical hardware things would go better). The code you wrote is actually A. hrtimer_forward() rolls the absolute timer forward such that its expiry is the next interval after now. It is while (hrtimer->expires < now) hrtimer->expires += interval; -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
