On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 01:50:53PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:12:59PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:37:47PM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:10:52PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:54:57AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:06:00AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > >On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:53:51AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
> > > > > >>Hi Gustavo,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>A little late to the party here, but I was blocked by our internal
> > > > > >>contributions process...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I didn't see these end up in my checkout yet though, so I guess they
> > > > > >>aren't picked up yet.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 06:59:21PM +0900, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > > > >>>From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Add support for the OUT_FENCE_PTR property to enable setting out fences for
> > > > > >>>atomic commits.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>>---
> > > > > >>>lib/igt_kms.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > >>>lib/igt_kms.h | 3 +++
> > > > > >>>2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>diff --git a/lib/igt_kms.c b/lib/igt_kms.c
> > > > > >>>index 4748c0a..f25e1eb 100644
> > > > > >>>--- a/lib/igt_kms.c
> > > > > >>>+++ b/lib/igt_kms.c
> > > > > >>>@@ -175,7 +175,8 @@ const char *igt_crtc_prop_names[IGT_NUM_CRTC_PROPS] = {
> > > > > >>> "DEGAMMA_LUT",
> > > > > >>> "GAMMA_LUT",
> > > > > >>> "MODE_ID",
> > > > > >>>- "ACTIVE"
> > > > > >>>+ "ACTIVE",
> > > > > >>>+ "OUT_FENCE_PTR"
> > > > > >>>};
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>const char *igt_connector_prop_names[IGT_NUM_CONNECTOR_PROPS] = {
> > > > > >>>@@ -2103,6 +2104,9 @@ static void igt_atomic_prepare_crtc_commit(igt_pipe_t *pipe_obj, drmModeAtomicRe
> > > > > >>> igt_atomic_populate_crtc_req(req, pipe_obj, IGT_CRTC_ACTIVE, !!output);
> > > > > >>> }
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>+ if (pipe_obj->out_fence_ptr)
> > > > > >>>+ igt_atomic_populate_crtc_req(req, pipe_obj, IGT_CRTC_OUT_FENCE_PTR, pipe_obj->out_fence_ptr);
> > > > > >>>+
> > > > > >>> /*
> > > > > >>> * TODO: Add all crtc level properties here
> > > > > >>> */
> > > > > >>>@@ -2683,6 +2687,20 @@ igt_pipe_set_gamma_lut(igt_pipe_t *pipe, void *ptr, size_t length)
> > > > > >>>}
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>/**
> > > > > >>>+ * igt_pipe_set_out_fence_ptr:
> > > > > >>>+ * @pipe: pipe pointer to which background color to be set
> > > > > >>>+ * @fence_ptr: out fence pointer
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I don't think fence_ptr can be int *. It needs to be a pointer to a
> > > > > >>64-bit type.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>+ *
> > > > > >>>+ * Sets the out fence pointer that will be passed to the kernel in
> > > > > >>>+ * the atomic ioctl. When the kernel returns the out fence pointer
> > > > > >>>+ * will contain the fd number of the out fence created by KMS.
> > > > > >>>+ */
> > > > > >>>+void igt_pipe_set_out_fence_ptr(igt_pipe_t *pipe, int *fence_ptr)
> > > > > >>>+{
> > > > > >>>+ pipe->out_fence_ptr = (uint64_t) fence_ptr;
> > > > > >>>+}
> > > > > >>>+
> > > > > >>>+/**
> > > > > >>> * igt_crtc_set_background:
> > > > > >>> * @pipe: pipe pointer to which background color to be set
> > > > > >>> * @background: background color value in BGR 16bpc
> > > > > >>>diff --git a/lib/igt_kms.h b/lib/igt_kms.h
> > > > > >>>index 344f931..02d7bd1 100644
> > > > > >>>--- a/lib/igt_kms.h
> > > > > >>>+++ b/lib/igt_kms.h
> > > > > >>>@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ enum igt_atomic_crtc_properties {
> > > > > >>> IGT_CRTC_GAMMA_LUT,
> > > > > >>> IGT_CRTC_MODE_ID,
> > > > > >>> IGT_CRTC_ACTIVE,
> > > > > >>>+ IGT_CRTC_OUT_FENCE_PTR,
> > > > > >>> IGT_NUM_CRTC_PROPS
> > > > > >>>};
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>@@ -298,6 +299,7 @@ struct igt_pipe {
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> uint64_t mode_blob;
> > > > > >>> bool mode_changed;
> > > > > >>>+ uint64_t out_fence_ptr;
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>IMO this should be:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> int64_t *out_fence_ptr;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >In userspace, fences are *fd*, a plain int. It is only the uabi that we
> > > > > >pass pointers as u64 to the kernel, and indeed that should be limited to
> > > > > >the uabi wrapper.
> > > > > >-Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > Where's the uabi wrapper in this case?
> > > > >
> > > > > Wherever it is, afaik someone needs to have 64-bit type for the kernel
> > > > > to stash its fd in - on the kernel side out_fence_ptr is
> > > > > (s64 __user *), so if there's not a 64-bit variable on the other end
> > > > > of it then someone's going to have a bad day.
> > > >
> > > > We do not have pointers in the uabi because they are different sizes on
> > > > different platforms. The uabi must be a u64 representation of a user
> > > > address to store the result - that is what we pass to the crtc set
> > > > property ioctl.
> > >
> > > Sure, but igt_pipe is not a uabi structure. By storing a uint64_t here
> > > we're making it needlessly opaque what the value is actually meant to
> > > be - which is the address of a 64-bit signed integer.
> > >
> > > Regardless, tests cannot set out_fence_ptr to the address of an int, I
> > > hope we can agree on that. Where that detail gets taken care of I
> > > don't much mind - but this code as-is is incorrect.
> > >
> > > By making igt_pipe.out_fence_ptr an (int64_t *) I thought we'd be
> > > letting the compiler warn anyone else away from incorrect code.
> > >
> > > > That it has been futher managled not to pass around fd
> > > > is an interesting twist, but ideally that sillyness should not make
> > > > itself into our API.
> > >
> > > Allowing the kernel and userspace to have different ideas about how
> > > big an int is doesn't sound so silly to me. It may not be a
> > > theoretical problem forever.
> >
> > What Chris means is that you want to have an int out_fence in igt_pipe,
> > and just pass the address of that into the OUT_FENCE_PTR property.
>
> Storing the fence itself in igt_pipe instead of a pointer to it is a
> different matter (and it isn't what's implemented in this patch).
>
> It still doesn't change the fact that you can't do as you suggest -
> you cannot just pass the address of an int in the OUT_FENCE_PTR
> property.
>
> In the kernel, put_user(fd, fence_state[i].out_fence_ptr); is going to
> write 8 bytes. If out_fence_ptr is the address of a 4-byte variable,
> then obviously that's not going to work out so well.
Oh right, s/int/int64_t/, but otherwise that's imo what we should do.
> > In
> > userspace we want to directly handle the fd, not a pointer to an fd. Like
> > Chris explained, the pointer-to-fd-cast-to-u64 is just to be able to reuse
> > the atomic ioctl as transport, it's not a reasonable interface within
> > userspace.
>
> I don't really follow this bit. At some point, something in userspace
> is going to need to take care of the fact that the kernel needs to
> have an 8-byte container to write into.
Hm, why can't we allow igt test to directly access igt_pipe->out_fence?
And switch your function to igt_pipe_request_out_fence?
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
