Hi Hans, 2017-09-01 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Gustavo, > > I think I concentrate on this last patch first. Once I fully understand this > I can review the code. Remember, it's been a while for me since I last looked > at fences, so forgive me if I ask stupid questions. On the other hand, others > with a similar lack of understanding of fences probably have similar questions, > so it is a good indication where the documentation needs improvement :-) Please ask as many as you want, those are the best questions. :) > > On 01/09/17 03:50, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ---q > > Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst > > index 1f3612637200..6bd960d3972b 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst > > @@ -117,6 +117,36 @@ immediately with an ``EAGAIN`` error code when no buffer is available. > > The struct :c:type:`v4l2_buffer` structure is specified in > > :ref:`buffer`. > > > > +Explicit Synchronization > > +------------------------ > > + > > +Explicit Synchronization allows us to control the synchronization of > > +shared buffers from userspace by passing fences to the kernel and/or > > +receiving them from it. Fences passed to the kernel are named in-fences and > > +the kernel should wait them to signal before using the buffer, i.e., queueing > > +it to the driver. On the other side, the kernel can create out-fences for the > > +buffers it queues to the drivers, out-fences signal when the driver is > > +finished with buffer, that is the buffer is ready. > > This should add a line explaining that fences are represented by file descriptors. Okay. > > > + > > +The in-fences and out-fences are communicated at the ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` ioctl > > +using the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` and ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE`` buffer > > +flags and the `fence_fd` field. If an in-fence needs to be passed to the kernel, > > +`fence_fd` should be set to the fence file descriptor number and the > > +``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` should be set as well. > > Is it possible to have both flags at the same time? Or are they mutually exclusive? > > If only V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE is set, then what is the value of fence_fd after > the QBUF call? -1? Yes, it is -1. > > > + > > +To get a out-fence back from V4L2 the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE`` flag should > > +be set and the `fence_fd` field will be returned with the out-fence file > > +descriptor related to the next buffer to be queued internally to the V4L2 > > +driver. That means the out-fence may not be associated with the buffer in the > > +current ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` ioctl call because the ordering in which videobuf2 core > > +queues the buffers to the drivers can't be guaranteed. To become aware of the > > +buffer with which the out-fence will be attached the ``V4L2_EVENT_BUF_QUEUED`` > > +should be used. It will trigger an event for every buffer queued to the V4L2 > > +driver. > > General question: does it even make sense to use an out-fence if you don't know with > what buffer is it associated? I mean, QBUF returns an out fence, but only some > time later are you informed about a buffer being queued. It also looks like userspace > has to keep track of the issued out-fences and the queued buffers and map them > accordingly. > > If the out-fence cannot be used until you know the buffer as well, then wouldn't > it make more sense if the out-fence and the buffer index are both sent by the > event? Of course, in that case the event can only be sent to the owner file handle > of the streaming device node, but that's OK, we have that. > > Setting the OUT_FENCE flag will just cause this event to be sent whenever that > buffer is queued internally. > > Sorry if this just shows a complete lack of understanding of fences on my side, > that's perfectly possible. Right, I can not think of anything that prevents what you are saying to work. I built it this way initially because on my lack of understanding of V4L2 (seems we complement each other here :) because I thought we needed to keep the QBUF ordering. In the last review you talked me away of this misconception but I really didn't took that to the implementation. If there is no care about ordering, there is no need to receive the fence before and we could just do as you say. That makes sense to me. We could do it that way but I have one question, maybe a stupid one. :) If a specific driver can guarantee the ordering of vb2 buffer, and userspace has a way to become aware of that. In this case we will receive the out-fence in QBUF knowing the buffer already (it is ordered!). Thus we can proceed right away and send it to the next driver. Does that makes sense? Is this a optmization we need? In your proposal we will have the timeframe between the queueing to the driver and buffer_done() to make the out_fence arrive on the next driver. If that is sufficient then we can just do as you propose. > > It could be that when the out-fence triggers the listener is informed about the > associated buffer information, and in that case it makes a bit more sense. > Although in that case I don't see the reason for the event. Regardless, this > should be documented better. > > This documentation should also clarify what happens with fences if the streaming > stops, either by a STREAMOFF, closing the filehandle or a crash or whatever. > Do they signal? What about out-fences not yet associated with a buffer? I'll write about that. It will also change if we go with your proposal. Gustavo
