op 02-11-13 22:36, Colin Cross schreef: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Maarten Lankhorst > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> op 24-10-13 14:13, Maarten Lankhorst schreef: >>> So I actually tried to implement it now. I killed all the deprecated members and assumed a linear timeline. >>> This means that syncpoints can only be added at the end, not in between. In particular it means sw_sync >>> might be slightly broken. >>> >>> I only tested it with a simple program I wrote called ufence.c, it's in drivers/staging/android/ufence.c in the following tree: >>> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mlankhorst/linux >>> >>> the "rfc: convert android to fence api" has all the changes from my dma-fence proposal to what android would need, >>> it also converts the userspace fence api to use the dma-fence api. >>> >>> sync_pt is implemented as fence too. This meant not having to convert all of android right away, though I did make some changes. >>> I killed the deprecated members and made all the fence calls forward to the sync_timeline_ops. dup and compare are no longer used. >>> >>> I haven't given this a spin on a full android kernel, only with the components that are in mainline kernel under staging and my dumb test program. >>> >>> ~Maarten >>> >>> PS: The nomenclature is very confusing. I want to rename dma-fence to syncpoint, but I want some feedback from the android devs first. :) >>> >> Come on, any feedback? I want to move the discussion forward. >> >> ~Maarten > I experimented with it a little on a device that uses sync and came > across a few bugs: > 1. sync_timeline_signal needs to call __fence_signal on all signaled > points on the timeline, not just the first > 2. fence_add_callback doesn't always initialize cb.node > 3. sync_fence_wait should take ms > 4. sync_print_pt status printing was incorrect > 5. there is a deadlock: > sync_print_obj takes obj->child_list_lock > sync_print_pt > fence_is_signaled > fence_signal takes fence->lock == obj->child_list_lock > 6. freeing a timeline before all the fences holding points on that > timeline have timed out results in a crash > > With the attached patch to fix these issues, our libsync and sync_test > give the same results as with our sync code. I haven't tested against > the full Android framework yet. > > The compare op and timeline ordering is critical to the efficiency of > sync points on Android. The compare op is used when merging fences to > drop all but the latest point on the same timeline. This is necessary > for example when the same buffer is submitted to the display on > multiple frames, like when there is a live wallpaper in the background > updating at 60 fps and a static screen of widgets on top of it. The > static widget buffer is submitted on every frame, returning a new > fence each time. The compositor merges the new fence with the fence > for the previous buffer, and because they are on the same timeline it > merges down to a single point. I experimented with disabling the > merge optimization on a Nexus 10, and found that leaving the screen on > running a live wallpaper eventually resulted in 100k outstanding sync > points. Well, here I did the same for dma-fence, can you take a look? --- diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c index 2c7fd3f2ab23..d1d89f1f8553 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c @@ -232,39 +232,62 @@ void sync_fence_install(struct sync_fence *fence, int fd) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(sync_fence_install); +static void sync_fence_add_pt(struct sync_fence *fence, int *i, struct fence *pt) { + fence->cbs[*i].sync_pt = pt; + fence->cbs[*i].fence = fence; + + if (!fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[*i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) { + fence_get(pt); + (*i)++; + } +} + struct sync_fence *sync_fence_merge(const char *name, struct sync_fence *a, struct sync_fence *b) { int num_fences = a->num_fences + b->num_fences; struct sync_fence *fence; - int i; + int i, i_a, i_b; fence = sync_fence_alloc(offsetof(struct sync_fence, cbs[num_fences]), name); if (fence == NULL) return NULL; - fence->num_fences = num_fences; atomic_set(&fence->status, num_fences); - for (i = 0; i < a->num_fences; ++i) { - struct fence *pt = a->cbs[i].sync_pt; - - fence_get(pt); - fence->cbs[i].sync_pt = pt; - fence->cbs[i].fence = fence; - if (fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) - atomic_dec(&fence->status); + /* + * Assume sync_fence a and b are both ordered and have no + * duplicates with the same context. + * + * If a sync_fence can only be created with sync_fence_merge + * and sync_fence_create, this is a reasonable assumption. + */ + for (i = i_a = i_b = 0; i_a < a->num_fences || i_b < b->num_fences; ) { + struct fence *pt_a = i_a < a->num_fences ? a->cbs[i_a].sync_pt : NULL; + struct fence *pt_b = i_b < b->num_fences ? b->cbs[i_b].sync_pt : NULL; + + if (!pt_b || pt_a->context < pt_b->context) { + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_a); + + i_a++; + } else if (!pt_a || pt_a->context > pt_b->context) { + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_b); + + i_b++; + } else { + if (pt_a->seqno - pt_b->seqno <= INT_MAX) + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_a); + else + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_b); + + i_a++; + i_b++; + } } - for (i = 0; i < b->num_fences; ++i) { - struct fence *pt = b->cbs[i].sync_pt; - - fence_get(pt); - fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].sync_pt = pt; - fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].fence = fence; - if (fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) - atomic_dec(&fence->status); - } + if (num_fences > i) + atomic_sub(num_fences - i, &fence->status); + fence->num_fences = i; sync_fence_debug_add(fence); return fence; _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
