Re: about mmap dma-buf and sync

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

 



On 08/24/2015 02:42 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 08/24/2015 07:12 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,

On 24 August 2015 at 18:10, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/24/2015 07:04 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On 24 August 2015 at 17:56, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/24/2015 05:52 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
I still don't think this ameliorates the need for batching: consider
the case where you update two disjoint screen regions and want them
both flushed. Either you issue two separate sync calls (which can be
disadvantageous performance-wise on some hardware / setups), or you
accumulate the regions and only flush later. So either two ioctls (one
in the style of dirtyfb and one to perform the sync/flush; you can
shortcut to assume the full buffer was damaged if the former is
missing), or one like this:

struct dma_buf_sync_2d {
         enum dma_buf_sync_flags flags;

         __u64 stride_bytes;
         __u32 bytes_per_pixel;
         __u32 num_regions;

         struct {
                 __u64 x;
                 __u64 y;
                 __u64 width;
                 __u64 height;
         } regions[];
};
Fine with me, although perhaps bytes_per_pixel is a bit redundant?
Redundant how? It's not implicit in stride.
For flushing purposes, isn't it possible to cover all cases by assuming
bytes_per_pixel=1? Not that it matters much.
Sure, though in that case best to replace x with line_byte_offset or
something, because otherwise I guarantee you everyone will get it
wrong, and it'll be a pain to track down. Like how I managed to
misread it now. :)

OK, yeah you have a point. IMO let's go for your proposal.

Tiago, is this OK with you?

yup, I think so. So IIUC the main changes needed for the drivers implement 2D sync lies in the dma_buf_sync_2d structure only. I.e. there's nothing really to be changed in the common code, right? Then I'll just need to stick somewhere the logic about making sync mandatory, which I couldn't conclude much from your discussions with Jerome et al. I'll need to investigate more here.

Also, I still want to iterate with Google policy team about the actual need for a syscall. But I believe that eventually could be an secondary phase of this work (in case we ever agree upon having that).

Tiago

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[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