Re: 2.6.14-rt4: via DRM errors

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Thursday, November 24, 2005 4:50 am, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> There is some info in the old precision insight documentation about
> the DRI infrastructure, (can't seem to find a link right now) But
> generally there is only one global lock and something called the
> drawable spinlock that is apparently not used anymore. The global
> lock is similar to a futex, with the exception that the kernel is
> called both to resolve contention and whenever a new context is about
> to take the lock, so that optional context switching can take place,
> and also if the client requests that some special action should take
> place after locking is done, like wait for dma ready or quiescent.
> The lock should be taken before writing to the hardware or before
> submitting DMA commands. If you want to be _sure_ that noone else
> uses the hardware (like you want to  read a particular register or
> something), you have to take the lock and wait for DMA quiescent. For
> example, if you want to make sure the video scaler is idle so you can
> write to it, you first take the lock so that noone else writes to it
> or to the DMA queue, then you wait for the DMA queue to be empty or
> make sure there are no pending commands for the scaler, then you wait
> for the scaler to become idle.
>
> The lock value is easily manipulated from user space and resides in
> one of the shared memory areas. I guess this means that with the
> current drm security policy it should be regarded as an advisory lock
> between drm clients.

This is a nice little writeup, maybe it could go into the kernel's 
Documentation/ directory?  It would be nice to document how the lock 
and signal handling interact as well.

> At one point I was about to implement a scheme for via with a number
> of similar locks, one for each independent function on the video
> chip, Like 2D, 3D, Mpeg decoder, Video scaler 1 and 2, so that they
> didn't have to wait for  eachother. The global lock would then only
> be taken to make sure that no drawables were touched by the X server
> or other clients while the lock was held, which would be compatible
> with how the X server works today. Never got around to do that,
> however, but the mpeg decoders have a futex scheme to prevent clients
> stepping on eachother. With that it is possible to have multiple
> clients use the same hw decoder.

Sounds interesting, but that would be card specific, right?  I mean, on 
some cards the 2d and 3d locks would have to be the same because of 
shared state or whatever, for example.

Jesse