On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 1:49 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:53:56 -0800 > Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:48 AM Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 2023-02-20 11:14, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 12:53 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:15:49 -0800 > > > >> Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> > > > >>> Allow userspace to use the EPOLLPRI/POLLPRI flag to indicate an urgent > > > >>> wait (as opposed to a "housekeeping" wait to know when to cleanup after > > > >>> some work has completed). Usermode components of GPU driver stacks > > > >>> often poll() on fence fd's to know when it is safe to do things like > > > >>> free or reuse a buffer, but they can also poll() on a fence fd when > > > >>> waiting to read back results from the GPU. The EPOLLPRI/POLLPRI flag > > > >>> lets the kernel differentiate these two cases. > > > >>> > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> where would the UAPI documentation of this go? > > > >> It seems to be missing. > > > > > > > > Good question, I am not sure. The poll() man page has a description, > > > > but my usage doesn't fit that _exactly_ (but OTOH the description is a > > > > bit vague). > > > > > > > >> If a Wayland compositor is polling application fences to know which > > > >> client buffer to use in its rendering, should the compositor poll with > > > >> PRI or not? If a compositor polls with PRI, then all fences from all > > > >> applications would always be PRI. Would that be harmful somehow or > > > >> would it be beneficial? > > > > > > > > I think a compositor would rather use the deadline ioctl and then poll > > > > without PRI. Otherwise you are giving an urgency signal to the fence > > > > signaller which might not necessarily be needed. > > > > > > > > The places where I expect PRI to be useful is more in mesa (things > > > > like glFinish(), readpix, and other similar sorts of blocking APIs) > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hmm, but then user-space could do the opposite, namely, submit work as usual--never > > > using the SET_DEADLINE ioctl, and then at the end, poll using (E)POLLPRI. That seems > > > like a possible usage pattern, unintended--maybe, but possible. Do we want to discourage > > > this? Wouldn't SET_DEADLINE be enough? I mean, one can call SET_DEADLINE with the current > > > time, and then wouldn't that be equivalent to (E)POLLPRI? > > > > Yeah, (E)POLLPRI isn't strictly needed if we have SET_DEADLINE. It is > > slightly more convenient if you want an immediate deadline (single > > syscall instead of two), but not strictly needed. OTOH it piggy-backs > > on existing UABI. > > In that case, I would be conservative, and not add the POLLPRI > semantics. An UAPI addition that is not strictly needed and somewhat > unclear if it violates any design principles is best not done, until it > is proven to be beneficial. > > Besides, a Wayland compositor does not necessary need to add the fd > to its main event loop for poll. It could just SET_DEADLINE, and then > when it renders simply check if the fence passed or not already. Not > polling means the compositor does not need to wake up at the moment the > fence signals to just record a flag. poll(POLLPRI) isn't intended for wayland.. but is a thing I want in mesa for fence waits. I _could_ use SET_DEADLINE but it is two syscalls and correspondingly more code ;-) > On another matter, if the application uses SET_DEADLINE with one > timestamp, and the compositor uses SET_DEADLINE on the same thing with > another timestamp, what should happen? The expectation is that many deadline hints can be set on a fence. The fence signaller should track the soonest deadline. BR, -R > Maybe it's a soft-realtime app whose primary goal is not display, and > it needs the result faster than the window server? > > Maybe SET_DEADLINE should set the deadline only to an earlier timestamp > and never later? > > > Thanks, > pq
