11.09.2020 12:59, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
> On 9/11/20 12:57 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 09.09.2020 11:36, Mikko Perttunen пишет:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to have timeout in microseconds?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure, but better have it a bit more fine-grained rather than
>>> coarse-grained. This still gives a maximum timeout of 71 minutes so I
>>> don't think it has any negatives compared to milliseconds.
>>
>> If there is no good reason to use microseconds right now, then should be
>> better to default to milliseconds, IMO. It shouldn't be a problem to
>> extend the IOCLT with a microseconds entry, if ever be needed.
>>
>> {
>> __u32 timeout_ms;
>> ...
>> __u32 timeout_us;
>> }
>>
>> timeout = timeout_ms + 1000 * timeout_us;
>>
>> There shouldn't be a need for a long timeouts, since a job that takes
>> over 100ms is probably too unpractical. It also should be possible to
>> detect a progressing job and then defer timeout in the driver. At least
>> this is what other drivers do, like etnaviv driver for example:
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c#L107
>>
>>
>
> I still don't quite understand why it's better to default to
> milliseconds? As you say, there is no need to have a long timeout, and
> if we go microseconds now, then there wouldn't be a need to extend in
> the future.
It will nicer to avoid unnecessary unit-conversions in the code in order
to keep it cleaner.
I'm now also a bit dubious about that the timeout field of the submit
IOCTL will be in the final UAPI version because it should become
obsolete once drm-scheduler will be hooked up, since the hung-check
timeout will be specified per-hardware engine within the kernel driver
and there won't be much use for the user-defined timeout.
