Hi, On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 08:08, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did anything happen with this? > > Nope. There's an igt now that fails with this, and I'm not sure > whether changing the igt is the right idea or not. > > I'm kinda now thinking about changing this to instead document under > which exact situations you can get a spurious EBUSY, and enforcing > that in the code with some checks. Essentially only possible if you do > a ALLOW_MODESET | NONBLOCKING on the other crtc. And then tell > userspace you get to eat that. We've been shipping with this for so > long by now that's defacto the uapi anyway :-/ > > Thoughts? Too horrible? I've been trying to avoid that, to be honest. Taking a random delay because the kernel needs to do global things is fine. But making userspace either do an expensive/complicated cross-CRTC synchronisation is less easy; for some compositors, that means reaching across threads to make sure all CRTCs are quiescent. Either that, or deferring your ALLOW_MODESET to somewhere else, like an idle handler, far away from where you were originally trying to do it, which wouldn't be pleasant. The other option is that we teach people to ignore EBUSY as random noise which can just sometimes happen and to try again (when? how often? and you still have cross-CRTC synchronisation issues), which doesn't scream compositor best practice to me. I'd be very much in favour of putting the blocking down in the kernel at least until the kernel can give us a clear indication to tell us what's going on, and ideally which other resources need to be dragged in, in a way which is distinguishable from your compositor having broken synchronisation. Cheers, Daniel
