From patchwork Mon Nov 4 10:31:26 2013 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Maarten Lankhorst X-Patchwork-Id: 3135181 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-dri-devel@patchwork.kernel.org Delivered-To: patchwork-parsemail@patchwork1.web.kernel.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.19.201]) by patchwork1.web.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110579F407 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7BA20212 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D3B2020A for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7848CFA1F0; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 02:31:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Delivered-To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207A7FA1F0 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 02:31:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from 5ed49945.cm-7-5c.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([94.212.153.69] helo=[192.168.1.128]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VdHRO-0006xD-VP; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 10:31:27 +0000 Message-ID: <5277777E.5060904@canonical.com> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:31:26 +0100 From: Maarten Lankhorst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Colin Cross Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] thoughts of looking at android fences References: <524BCCD0.90002@canonical.com> <52556ABE.2090201@canonical.com> <52690EEC.5000501@canonical.com> <5270F8D7.4040406@canonical.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Cc: "linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org" , Android Kernel Team , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mail.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP op 02-11-13 22:36, Colin Cross schreef: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Maarten Lankhorst > wrote: >> op 24-10-13 14:13, Maarten Lankhorst schreef: >>> So I actually tried to implement it now. I killed all the deprecated members and assumed a linear timeline. >>> This means that syncpoints can only be added at the end, not in between. In particular it means sw_sync >>> might be slightly broken. >>> >>> I only tested it with a simple program I wrote called ufence.c, it's in drivers/staging/android/ufence.c in the following tree: >>> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mlankhorst/linux >>> >>> the "rfc: convert android to fence api" has all the changes from my dma-fence proposal to what android would need, >>> it also converts the userspace fence api to use the dma-fence api. >>> >>> sync_pt is implemented as fence too. This meant not having to convert all of android right away, though I did make some changes. >>> I killed the deprecated members and made all the fence calls forward to the sync_timeline_ops. dup and compare are no longer used. >>> >>> I haven't given this a spin on a full android kernel, only with the components that are in mainline kernel under staging and my dumb test program. >>> >>> ~Maarten >>> >>> PS: The nomenclature is very confusing. I want to rename dma-fence to syncpoint, but I want some feedback from the android devs first. :) >>> >> Come on, any feedback? I want to move the discussion forward. >> >> ~Maarten > I experimented with it a little on a device that uses sync and came > across a few bugs: > 1. sync_timeline_signal needs to call __fence_signal on all signaled > points on the timeline, not just the first > 2. fence_add_callback doesn't always initialize cb.node > 3. sync_fence_wait should take ms > 4. sync_print_pt status printing was incorrect > 5. there is a deadlock: > sync_print_obj takes obj->child_list_lock > sync_print_pt > fence_is_signaled > fence_signal takes fence->lock == obj->child_list_lock > 6. freeing a timeline before all the fences holding points on that > timeline have timed out results in a crash > > With the attached patch to fix these issues, our libsync and sync_test > give the same results as with our sync code. I haven't tested against > the full Android framework yet. > > The compare op and timeline ordering is critical to the efficiency of > sync points on Android. The compare op is used when merging fences to > drop all but the latest point on the same timeline. This is necessary > for example when the same buffer is submitted to the display on > multiple frames, like when there is a live wallpaper in the background > updating at 60 fps and a static screen of widgets on top of it. The > static widget buffer is submitted on every frame, returning a new > fence each time. The compositor merges the new fence with the fence > for the previous buffer, and because they are on the same timeline it > merges down to a single point. I experimented with disabling the > merge optimization on a Nexus 10, and found that leaving the screen on > running a live wallpaper eventually resulted in 100k outstanding sync > points. Well, here I did the same for dma-fence, can you take a look? diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c index 2c7fd3f2ab23..d1d89f1f8553 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/android/sync.c +++ b/drivers/staging/android/sync.c @@ -232,39 +232,62 @@ void sync_fence_install(struct sync_fence *fence, int fd) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(sync_fence_install); +static void sync_fence_add_pt(struct sync_fence *fence, int *i, struct fence *pt) { + fence->cbs[*i].sync_pt = pt; + fence->cbs[*i].fence = fence; + + if (!fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[*i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) { + fence_get(pt); + (*i)++; + } +} + struct sync_fence *sync_fence_merge(const char *name, struct sync_fence *a, struct sync_fence *b) { int num_fences = a->num_fences + b->num_fences; struct sync_fence *fence; - int i; + int i, i_a, i_b; fence = sync_fence_alloc(offsetof(struct sync_fence, cbs[num_fences]), name); if (fence == NULL) return NULL; - fence->num_fences = num_fences; atomic_set(&fence->status, num_fences); - for (i = 0; i < a->num_fences; ++i) { - struct fence *pt = a->cbs[i].sync_pt; - - fence_get(pt); - fence->cbs[i].sync_pt = pt; - fence->cbs[i].fence = fence; - if (fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) - atomic_dec(&fence->status); + /* + * Assume sync_fence a and b are both ordered and have no + * duplicates with the same context. + * + * If a sync_fence can only be created with sync_fence_merge + * and sync_fence_create, this is a reasonable assumption. + */ + for (i = i_a = i_b = 0; i_a < a->num_fences || i_b < b->num_fences; ) { + struct fence *pt_a = i_a < a->num_fences ? a->cbs[i_a].sync_pt : NULL; + struct fence *pt_b = i_b < b->num_fences ? b->cbs[i_b].sync_pt : NULL; + + if (!pt_b || pt_a->context < pt_b->context) { + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_a); + + i_a++; + } else if (!pt_a || pt_a->context > pt_b->context) { + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_b); + + i_b++; + } else { + if (pt_a->seqno - pt_b->seqno <= INT_MAX) + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_a); + else + sync_fence_add_pt(fence, &i, pt_b); + + i_a++; + i_b++; + } } - for (i = 0; i < b->num_fences; ++i) { - struct fence *pt = b->cbs[i].sync_pt; - - fence_get(pt); - fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].sync_pt = pt; - fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].fence = fence; - if (fence_add_callback(pt, &fence->cbs[a->num_fences + i].cb, fence_check_cb_func)) - atomic_dec(&fence->status); - } + if (num_fences > i) + atomic_sub(num_fences - i, &fence->status); + fence->num_fences = i; sync_fence_debug_add(fence); return fence;