Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-buf: add dma_fence_unwrap

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 25.03.22 um 11:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:10:15AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
Am 25.03.22 um 11:07 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:03:54AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:02:43PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
Add a general purpose helper to deep dive into dma_fence_chain/dma_fence_array
structures and iterate over all the fences in them.

This is useful when we need to flatten out all fences in those structures.

Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
---
   Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst  |   6 +
   drivers/dma-buf/Makefile              |   1 +
   drivers/dma-buf/selftests.h           |   1 +
   drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c | 279 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h      |  99 +++++++++
   5 files changed, 386 insertions(+)
   create mode 100644 drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c
   create mode 100644 include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h

diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
index 2cd7db82d9fe..7209500f08c8 100644
--- a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
+++ b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst
@@ -194,6 +194,12 @@ DMA Fence Chain
   .. kernel-doc:: include/linux/dma-fence-chain.h
      :internal:
+DMA Fence unwrap
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+.. kernel-doc:: include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h
+   :internal:
Ok I forgot one bikeshed: I'd just include this in dma-fence-chain.h and
maybe go with the dma_fence_chain_unwrap_ prefix for everything. That
makes it even more clearer that the two are meant to go together. Plus ofc
the link from struct dma_fence_chain to this iterator in the docs too.

Or I'm just not understanding why you made this a separate thing?
Well it should be used to unwrap dma_fence_array containers as well and I
don't really want to add a dependency between dma_fence_chain and
dma_fence_array.

I've spend quite some work to keep the two containers separated and also
describe the separate use cases for each.

I can of course add some kerneldoc to let the chain and array documentation
point to this one here.
Yeah I think as a general iterator they should be fine as a separate
thing. Also just realized that we'd need links from both array and chain
to this since it's for both.

Done.


The other thing I noticed is that we have dma_fence_chain_for_each()
already. Should we replace all users of that outside of dma-fence-chain.c
with this new thing, and move the chain specific iterator into
dma-fence-chain.c so that it's hidden and people don't make funny
accidents? Just for more safety in this maze, also ofc that's all
follow-up.

Uff, good question. There are some valid use cases for it I think.

Especially the timeline syncobj handling only want to work with chain structures and not with the eventually contained array.

It could just be that we might want to wrap those use cases into dma_fence_chain helpers.

Anyway, not stuff for drm-misc-next-fixes, but going to keep that in mind.

Christian.

-Daniel



Thanks,
Christian.

-Daniel

+
   DMA Fence uABI/Sync File
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile b/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile
index 511805dbeb75..4c9eb53ba3f8 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/Makefile
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ dmabuf_selftests-y := \
   	selftest.o \
   	st-dma-fence.o \
   	st-dma-fence-chain.o \
+	st-dma-fence-unwrap.o \
   	st-dma-resv.o
   obj-$(CONFIG_DMABUF_SELFTESTS)	+= dmabuf_selftests.o
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/selftests.h b/drivers/dma-buf/selftests.h
index 97d73aaa31da..851965867d9c 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/selftests.h
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/selftests.h
@@ -12,4 +12,5 @@
   selftest(sanitycheck, __sanitycheck__) /* keep first (igt selfcheck) */
   selftest(dma_fence, dma_fence)
   selftest(dma_fence_chain, dma_fence_chain)
+selftest(dma_fence_unwrap, dma_fence_unwrap)
   selftest(dma_resv, dma_resv)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..d821faaebe93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c
@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2022 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h>
+#if 0
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/kthread.h>
+#include <linux/mm.h>
+#include <linux/sched/signal.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/random.h>
+#endif
+
+#include "selftest.h"
+
+#define CHAIN_SZ (4 << 10)
+
+static struct kmem_cache *slab_fences;
Your own slab feels a bit like overkill. kmalloc/kfree not good enough?

+
+static inline struct mock_fence {
+	struct dma_fence base;
+	spinlock_t lock;
+} *to_mock_fence(struct dma_fence *f) {
+	return container_of(f, struct mock_fence, base);
+}
+
+static const char *mock_name(struct dma_fence *f)
+{
+	return "mock";
+}
+
+static void mock_fence_release(struct dma_fence *f)
+{
+	kmem_cache_free(slab_fences, to_mock_fence(f));
+}
+
+static const struct dma_fence_ops mock_ops = {
+	.get_driver_name = mock_name,
+	.get_timeline_name = mock_name,
+	.release = mock_fence_release,
+};
+
+static struct dma_fence *mock_fence(void)
+{
+	struct mock_fence *f;
+
+	f = kmem_cache_alloc(slab_fences, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!f)
+		return NULL;
+
+	spin_lock_init(&f->lock);
+	dma_fence_init(&f->base, &mock_ops, &f->lock, 0, 0);
+
+	return &f->base;
+}
+
+static struct dma_fence *mock_array(unsigned int num_fences, ...)
+{
+	struct dma_fence_array *array;
+	struct dma_fence **fences;
+	va_list valist;
+	int i;
+
+	fences = kcalloc(num_fences, sizeof(*fences), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!fences)
+		return NULL;
+
+	va_start(valist, num_fences);
+	for (i = 0; i < num_fences; ++i)
+		fences[i] = va_arg(valist, typeof(*fences));
+	va_end(valist);
+
+	array = dma_fence_array_create(num_fences, fences,
+				       dma_fence_context_alloc(1),
+				       1, false);
+	if (!array)
+		goto cleanup;
+	return &array->base;
+
+cleanup:
+	for (i = 0; i < num_fences; ++i)
+		dma_fence_put(fences[i]);
+	kfree(fences);
+	return NULL;
+}
+
+static struct dma_fence *mock_chain(struct dma_fence *prev,
+				    struct dma_fence *fence)
+{
+	struct dma_fence_chain *f;
+
+	f = dma_fence_chain_alloc();
+	if (!f) {
+		dma_fence_put(prev);
+		dma_fence_put(fence);
+		return NULL;
+	}
+
+	dma_fence_chain_init(f, prev, fence, 1);
+	return &f->base;
+}
+
+static int sanitycheck(void *arg)
+{
+	struct dma_fence *f, *chain, *array;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	f = mock_fence();
+	if (!f)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	array = mock_array(1, f);
+	if (!array)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	chain = mock_chain(NULL, array);
+	if (!chain)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	dma_fence_signal(f);
+	dma_fence_put(chain);
+	return err;
+}
+
+static int unwrap_array(void *arg)
+{
+	struct dma_fence *fence, *f1, *f2, *array;
+	struct dma_fence_unwrap iter;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	f1 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f1)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	f2 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f2) {
+		dma_fence_put(f1);
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	array = mock_array(2, f1, f2);
+	if (!array)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, &iter, array) {
+		if (fence == f1) {
+			f1 = NULL;
+		} else if (fence == f2) {
+			f2 = NULL;
+		} else {
+			pr_err("Unexpected fence!\n");
+			err = -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (f1 || f2) {
+		pr_err("Not all fences seen!\n");
+		err = -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	dma_fence_signal(f1);
+	dma_fence_signal(f2);
+	dma_fence_put(array);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int unwrap_chain(void *arg)
+{
+	struct dma_fence *fence, *f1, *f2, *chain;
+	struct dma_fence_unwrap iter;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	f1 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f1)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	f2 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f2) {
+		dma_fence_put(f1);
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	chain = mock_chain(f1, f2);
+	if (!chain)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, &iter, chain) {
+		if (fence == f1) {
+			f1 = NULL;
+		} else if (fence == f2) {
+			f2 = NULL;
+		} else {
+			pr_err("Unexpected fence!\n");
+			err = -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (f1 || f2) {
+		pr_err("Not all fences seen!\n");
+		err = -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	dma_fence_signal(f1);
+	dma_fence_signal(f2);
+	dma_fence_put(chain);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int unwrap_chain_array(void *arg)
+{
+	struct dma_fence *fence, *f1, *f2, *array, *chain;
+	struct dma_fence_unwrap iter;
+	int err = 0;
+
+	f1 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f1)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	f2 = mock_fence();
+	if (!f2) {
+		dma_fence_put(f1);
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	array = mock_array(2, f1, f2);
+	if (!array)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	chain = mock_chain(NULL, array);
+	if (!chain)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, &iter, chain) {
+		if (fence == f1) {
+			f1 = NULL;
+		} else if (fence == f2) {
+			f2 = NULL;
+		} else {
+			pr_err("Unexpected fence!\n");
+			err = -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+
+	if (f1 || f2) {
+		pr_err("Not all fences seen!\n");
+		err = -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	dma_fence_signal(f1);
+	dma_fence_signal(f2);
+	dma_fence_put(chain);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+int dma_fence_unwrap(void)
+{
+	static const struct subtest tests[] = {
+		SUBTEST(sanitycheck),
+		SUBTEST(unwrap_array),
+		SUBTEST(unwrap_chain),
+		SUBTEST(unwrap_chain_array),
+	};
+	int ret;
+
+	slab_fences = KMEM_CACHE(mock_fence,
+				 SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU |
+				 SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN);
+	if (!slab_fences)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ret = subtests(tests, NULL);
+
+	kmem_cache_destroy(slab_fences);
+	return ret;
+}
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..54963df00c98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * fence-chain: chain fences together in a timeline
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2022 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
+ * Authors:
+ *	Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
+ */
+
+#ifndef __LINUX_DMA_FENCE_UNWRAP_H
+#define __LINUX_DMA_FENCE_UNWRAP_H
+
+#include <linux/dma-fence-chain.h>
+#include <linux/dma-fence-array.h>
+
+/**
+ * struct dma_fence_unwrap - cursor into the container structure
I think adding "This should be used together with
dma_fence_unwrap_for_each() iterator macro." would be nice here. I just
like links :-)

+ */
+struct dma_fence_unwrap {
+	/**
+	 * @chain: potential dma_fence_chain, but can be other fence as well
+	 */
+	struct dma_fence *chain;
+	/**
+	 * @array: potential dma_fence_array, but can be other fence as well
+	 */
+	struct dma_fence *array;
+	/**
+	 * @index: last returned index if @array is really a dma_fence_array
+	 */
+	unsigned int index;
+};
+
+/**
+ * dma_fence_unwrap_array - helper to unwrap dma_fence_arrays
+ * @cursor: cursor to initialize
+ *
+ * Helper function to unwrap dma_fence_array containers, don't touch directly.
+ * Use dma_fence_unwrap_first/next instead.
+ */
+static inline struct dma_fence *
+dma_fence_unwrap_array(struct dma_fence_unwrap * cursor)
Since this is a helper that no one should call I'd give it a __ prefix and
drop the kerneldoc. Documenting stuff that people shouldn't use is
confusing :-)

+{
+	cursor->array = dma_fence_chain_contained(cursor->chain);
+	cursor->index = 0;
+	return dma_fence_array_first(cursor->array);
+}
+
+/**
+ * dma_fence_unwrap_first - return the first fence from fence containers
+ * @head: the entrypoint into the containers
+ * @cursor: current position inside the containers
+ *
+ * Unwraps potential dma_fence_chain/dma_fence_array containers and return the
+ * first fence.
+ */
+static inline struct dma_fence *
+dma_fence_unwrap_first(struct dma_fence *head, struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor)
+{
+	cursor->chain = dma_fence_get(head);
+	return dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor);
+}
+
+/**
+ * dma_fence_unwrap_next - return the next fence from a fence containers
+ * @cursor: current position inside the containers
+ *
+ * Continue unwrapping the dma_fence_chain/dma_fence_array containers and return
+ * the next fence from them.
+ */
+static inline struct dma_fence *
+dma_fence_unwrap_next(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor)
+{
+	struct dma_fence *tmp;
+
+	++cursor->index;
+	tmp = dma_fence_array_next(cursor->array, cursor->index);
+	if (tmp)
+		return tmp;
+
+	cursor->chain = dma_fence_chain_walk(cursor->chain);
+	return dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor);
+}
+
+/**
+ * dma_fence_unwrap_for_each - iterate over all fences in containers
+ * @fence: current fence
+ * @cursor: current position inside the containers
+ * @head: starting point for the iterator
+ *
+ * Unwrap dma_fence_chain and dma_fence_array containers and deep dive into all
+ * potential fences in them. If @head is just a normal fence only that one is
+ * returned.
+ */
+#define dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, cursor, head)			\
+	for (fence = dma_fence_unwrap_first(head, cursor); fence;	\
+	     fence = dma_fence_unwrap_next(cursor))
+
+#endif
I think it'd be really good to add a small paragraph to struct
dma_fence_chain that this macro and iterator should be used for walking
over all fences in a chain, including any fence arrays or anything like
that.

With the bikesheds addressed:

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>

--
2.25.1

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ffwll.ch%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Caa747083900b451d359308da0e4745e3%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637837996532802687%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Jts5%2BObWJHeUG4oy2biwj5Bf3PKkMrYU%2F0EihvQRNuY%3D&amp;reserved=0




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux