Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] drm/msm: Add fence->wait() op

From: "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
To: "Rob Clark" <robdclark@gmail.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Rob Clark" <robdclark@chromium.org>,
	"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR MSM ADRENO GPU"
	<freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR MSM ADRENO GPU"
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	"moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
	<linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org>, "Sean Paul" <sean@poorly.run>,
	"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-media@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] drm/msm: Add fence->wait() op
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 11:28:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9c1e797b-8860-d1f5-e6f2-e06380ec9012@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YPk1izQFR+tRV8js@phenom.ffwll.local>

Am 22.07.21 um 11:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> [SNIP]
>> As far as I know wake_up_state() tries to run the thread on the CPU it was
>> scheduled last, while wait_event_* makes the thread run on the CPU who
>> issues the wake by default.
>>
>> And yes I've also noticed this already and it was one of the reason why I
>> suggested to use a wait_queue instead of the hand wired dma_fence_wait
>> implementation.
> The first versions had used wait_queue, but iirc we had some issues with
> the callbacks and stuff and that was the reasons for hand-rolling. Or
> maybe it was the integration of the lockless fastpath for
> dma_fence_is_signalled().
>
>> [SNIP]
>> Well it would have been nicer if we used the existing infrastructure instead
>> of re-inventing stuff for dma_fence, but that chance is long gone.
>>
>> And you don't need a dma_fence_context base class, but rather just a flag in
>> the dma_fence_ops if you want to change the behavior.
> If there's something broken we should just fix it, not force everyone to
> set a random flag. dma_fence work like special wait_queues, so if we
> differ then we should go back to that.

Wait a second with that, this is not broken. It's just different 
behavior and there are good arguments for both sides.

If a wait is short you can have situations where you want to start the 
thread on the original CPU.
     This is because you can assume that the caches on that CPU are 
still hot and heating up the caches on the local CPU would take longer 
than an inter CPU interrupt.

But if the wait is long it makes more sense to run the thread on the CPU 
where you noticed the wake up event.
     This is because you can assume that the caches are cold anyway and 
starting the thread on the current CPU (most likely from an interrupt 
handler) gives you the absolutely best latency.
     In other words you usually return from the interrupt handler and 
just directly switch to the now running thread.

I'm not sure if all drivers want the same behavior. Rob here seems to 
prefer number 2, but we have used 1 for dma_fence for a rather long time 
now and it could be that some people start to complain when we switch 
unconditionally.

Regards,
Christian.

> -Daniel
>