On 11.11.2017 00:15, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 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. On the other hand.. it should work if one syncpoint could be assigned to multiple channels, couldn't it? -- 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
