lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH drm-misc-next v3] drm/sched: implement dynamic job-flow control
From
On 10/27/23 09:17, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Danilo,
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 18:13:00 +0200
> Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +
>> + /**
>> + * @update_job_credits: Called once the scheduler is considering this
>> + * job for execution.
>> + *
>> + * Drivers may use this to update the job's submission credits, which is
>> + * useful to e.g. deduct the number of native fences which have been
>> + * signaled meanwhile.
>> + *
>> + * The callback must either return the new number of submission credits
>> + * for the given job, or zero if no update is required.
>> + *
>> + * This callback is optional.
>> + */
>> + u32 (*update_job_credits)(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job);
>
> I'm copying my late reply to v2 here so it doesn't get lost:
>
> I keep thinking it'd be simpler to make this a void function that
> updates s_job->submission_credits directly. I also don't see the
> problem with doing a sanity check on job->submission_credits. I mean,
> if the driver is doing something silly, you can't do much to prevent it
> anyway, except warn the user that something wrong has happened. If you
> want to
>
> WARN_ON(job->submission_credits == 0 ||
> job->submission_credits > job_old_submission_credits);
>
> that's fine. But none of this sanity checking has to do with the
> function prototype/semantics, and I'm still not comfortable with this 0
> => no-change. If there's no change, we should just leave
> job->submission_credits unchanged (or return job->submission_credits)
> instead of inventing a new special case.

If we can avoid letting drivers change fields of generic structures directly
without any drawbacks I think we should avoid it. Currently, drivers shouldn't
have the need to mess with job->credits directly. The initial value is set
through drm_sched_job_init() and is updated through the return value of
update_job_credits().

I'm fine getting rid of the 0 => no-change semantics though. Instead we can just
WARN() on 0. However, if we do that I'd also want to change it for
drm_sched_job_init() (where 0 currently defaults to 1) such that we accept 0, but
WARN() accordingly.

I think it's consequent to either consistently give 0 a different meaning or just
accept it but WARN() on it.

>
> Regards,
>
> Boris
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-10-27 16:35    [W:0.888 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site