lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] dma-fence: dma-buf synchronization (v2)
Hey Rob,

Op 13-07-12 17:38, Rob Clark schreef:
> ...
> +/**
> + * dma_buf_attach_fence - Attach a fence to a dma-buf.
> + *
> + * @buf: the dma-buf to attach to
> + * @fence: the fence to attach
> + *
> + * A fence can only be attached to a single dma-buf. The dma-buf takes
> + * ownership of the fence, which is unref'd when the fence is signaled.
> + * The fence takes a reference to the dma-buf so the buffer will not be
> + * freed while there is a pending fence.
> + */
> +int dma_buf_attach_fence(struct dma_buf *buf, struct dma_fence *fence)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!buf || !fence))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
> + if (!fence->attached) {
> + get_dma_buf(buf);
> + fence->attached = true;
> + list_add(&fence->list_node, &buf->fence_list);
> + ret = 0;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_buf_attach_fence);
This design that a fence can only be attached to 1 dmabuf?
Wouldn't it be better to kill the fence_list and just create an array
of pointers to all the fences attached to current dmabuf?
Or some other design that would allow multiple fences to be
attached to a single dmabuf, and a single fence to multiple
dma-bufs without being attached to all and without too many
memory allocations. Maybe we should add a limit in a #define
to how many fences can be attached to a single dmabuf?
More than 4 fences on a single dma-buf is likely overkill, but I don't
want to place a limit yet on how many dma-bufs can attach to a
single fence.
> +/**
> + * dma_buf_get_fence - Get the most recent pending fence attached to the
> + * dma-buf.
> + *
> + * @buf: the dma-buf whose fence to get
> + *
> + * If this returns NULL, there are no pending fences. Otherwise this
> + * takes a reference to the returned fence, so the caller must later
> + * call dma_fence_put() to release the reference.
> + */
> +struct dma_fence *dma_buf_get_fence(struct dma_buf *buf)
> +{
> + struct dma_fence *fence = NULL;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!buf))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
> + if (!list_empty(&buf->fence_list)) {
> + fence = list_first_entry(&buf->fence_list,
> + struct dma_fence, list_node);
> + dma_fence_get(fence);
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
> +
> + return fence;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_buf_get_fence);
Would mean obsoleting this function, since there's
no longer a single fence.

> + * dma_fence_put - Release a reference to the fence.
> + */
> +void dma_fence_put(struct dma_fence *fence)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(!fence);
> + kref_put(&fence->refcount, release_fence);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_put);
Make this inline?

> +/**
> + * dma_fence_get - Take a reference to the fence.
> + *
> + * In most cases this is used only internally by dma-fence.
> + */
> +void dma_fence_get(struct dma_fence *fence)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(!fence);
> + kref_get(&fence->refcount);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_get);
Same.

> +/**
> + * dma_fence_add_callback - Add a callback to be called when the fence
> + * is signaled.
> + *
> + * @fence: The fence to wait on
> + * @cb: The callback to register
> + *
> + * Any number of callbacks can be registered to a fence, but a callback
> + * can only be registered to once fence at a time.
> + *
> + * Note that the callback can be called from an atomic context. If
> + * fence is already signaled, this function will return -ENOENT (and
> + * *not* call the callback)
> + */
> +int dma_fence_add_callback(struct dma_fence *fence,
> + struct dma_fence_cb *cb)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!fence || !cb))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = check_signaling(fence);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
> + if (ret == -ENOENT) {
> + /* if state changed while we dropped the lock, dispatch now */
> + signal_fence(fence);
> + } else if (!fence->signaled && !ret) {
> + dma_fence_get(fence);
> + cb->fence = fence;
> + __add_wait_queue(&fence->event_queue, &cb->base);
> + ret = 0;
> + } else {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->event_queue.lock, flags);
Unconditionally taking same spinlock twice seems a bit overkill,
maybe just drop it in check_signalling if needed?

Some standardized base for hardware dma-buf fence objects would
also be nice, it will make implementing it for drm a lot easier.

~Maarten


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-16 13:01    [W:0.083 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site