From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753902AbdK2JKx (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:10:53 -0500 Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([91.232.154.25]:40342 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752578AbdK2JKs (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 04:10:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] gpu: host1x: Optionally block when acquiring channel To: Dmitry Osipenko , Mikko Perttunen , thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com References: <20171105110118.15142-1-mperttunen@nvidia.com> <20171105110118.15142-11-mperttunen@nvidia.com> <9c5676eb-ba6f-c187-29e4-7b331bd3962f@gmail.com> <38340901-7016-3444-5ace-64159b32f1c7@kapsi.fi> <1b35ec93-167b-3436-0ff2-5e2e0886aea7@gmail.com> <775a2536-b225-2d96-3954-7efab6bc5c3e@gmail.com> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Mikko Perttunen Message-ID: <794b713e-e4f9-0b71-d9eb-168d002ab6a2@kapsi.fi> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:10:46 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <775a2536-b225-2d96-3954-7efab6bc5c3e@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 62.209.167.43 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: cyndis@kapsi.fi X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12.11.2017 13:23, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 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? A syncpoint can only be mapped to a single channel, so unfortunately this won't work. Mikko > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >