On 07.11.2017 18:29, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On 07.11.2017 16:11, Mikko Perttunen wrote: >> On 05.11.2017 19:14, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>> On 05.11.2017 14:01, Mikko Perttunen wrote: >>>> Add an option to host1x_channel_request to interruptibly wait for a >>>> free channel. This allows IOCTLs that acquire a channel to block >>>> the userspace. >>>> >>> >>> Wouldn't it be more optimal to request channel and block after job's pining, >>> when all patching and checks are completed? Note that right now we have locking >>> around submission in DRM, which I suppose should go away by making locking fine >>> grained. >> >> That would be possible, but I don't think it should matter much since contention >> here should not be the common case. >> >>> >>> Or maybe it would be more optimal to just iterate over channels, like I >>> suggested before [0]? >> >> Somehow I hadn't noticed this before, but this would break the invariant of >> having one client/class per channel. >> > > Yes, currently there is a weak relation of channel and clients device, but seems > channels device is only used for printing dev_* messages and device could be > borrowed from the channels job. I don't see any real point of hardwiring channel > to a specific device or client. Although, it won't work with syncpoint assignment to channel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
