From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
To: Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"open list:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER"
<virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>,
Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/virtio: add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence()
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:38:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACvgo516JGdfBZ8zM73bQ-TCeNEbOp9ioBy9jh0AAtpUsu5tOg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181025183739.9375-2-robert.foss@collabora.com>
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:38, Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
>
> Refactor fence creation to remove the potential allocation failure from
> the cmd_submit and atomic_commit paths. Now the fence should be allocated
> first and just after we should proceed with the rest of the execution.
>
Commit does a bit more that what the above says:
- dummy, factor out fence creation/destruction
- use per virtio_gpu_framebuffer fence
Personally I'd keep the two separate patches and elaborate on the latter.
Obviously in that case, one will need to add 3 lines worth of
virtio_gpu_fence_alloc() in virtio_gpu_cursor_plane_update which will be nuked
with the next patch.
Not a big deal, but it's up-to the maintainer to make the final call if it's
worth splitting or not.
Couple of minor nitpicks below.
> struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev = dev->dev_private;
> struct virtio_gpu_output *output = NULL;
> struct virtio_gpu_framebuffer *vgfb;
> - struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence = NULL;
> struct virtio_gpu_object *bo = NULL;
> uint32_t handle;
> int ret = 0;
Add the virtio_gpu_fence_alloc()? And yes it will be nuked with patch 2/...
> +struct virtio_gpu_fence *virtio_gpu_fence_alloc(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev)
> +{
> + struct virtio_gpu_fence_driver *drv = &vgdev->fence_drv;
> + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence = kzalloc(sizeof(struct virtio_gpu_fence), GFP_ATOMIC);
> + if (!fence)
> + return fence;
> +
> + fence->drv = drv;
> + dma_fence_init(&fence->f, &virtio_fence_ops, &drv->lock, drv->context, 0);
Oh no, lines over 80 col... while the original code is pretty and neat.
> +
> + return fence;
> +}
> +
> +void virtio_gpu_fence_cleanup(struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence)
> +{
> + if (!fence)
> + return;
> +
> + if (fence->drv)
> + dma_fence_put(&fence->f);
> + else
> + kfree(fence);
I'm not sure if/how we reach the else case here?
> +}
> +
> int virtio_gpu_fence_emit(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
> struct virtio_gpu_ctrl_hdr *cmd_hdr,
> - struct virtio_gpu_fence **fence)
> + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence)
> {
With a follow-up commit, we can drop the no longer needed return type.
Which it turns out was never checked ...
> @@ -319,6 +332,8 @@ static int virtio_gpu_resource_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> dma_fence_put(&fence->f);
> }
> return 0;
> +fail_fence:
The error labels seems to be called after what they do, not what
fails. fail_backoff seems better IMHO.
> +ttm_eu_backoff_reservation(&ticket, &validate_list);
Indentation seems off (or my client ate it)?
HTH
Emil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-31 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-25 18:37 [PATCH 0/5] virgl: fence fd support Robert Foss
2018-10-25 18:37 ` [PATCH 1/5] drm/virtio: add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence() Robert Foss
2018-10-31 9:38 ` Emil Velikov [this message]
2018-11-01 12:43 ` Robert Foss
2018-11-05 6:38 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2018-10-25 18:37 ` [PATCH 2/5] drm/virtio: add uapi for in and out explicit fences Robert Foss
2018-10-30 6:11 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2018-10-30 11:31 ` Emil Velikov
2018-10-30 13:52 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2018-10-30 15:48 ` Emil Velikov
2018-10-31 9:38 ` Emil Velikov
2018-11-01 12:56 ` Robert Foss
2018-11-02 13:34 ` Emil Velikov
2018-11-02 14:42 ` Robert Foss
2018-10-25 18:37 ` [PATCH 3/5] drm/virtio: add in-fences support for explicit synchronization Robert Foss
2018-10-31 9:38 ` Emil Velikov
2018-10-25 18:37 ` [PATCH 4/5] drm/virtio: add out-fences " Robert Foss
2018-10-31 9:39 ` Emil Velikov
2018-10-25 18:37 ` [PATCH 5/5] drm/virtio: bump driver version after explicit synchronization addition Robert Foss
2018-10-31 9:39 ` Emil Velikov
2018-10-31 9:45 ` [PATCH 0/5] virgl: fence fd support Emil Velikov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACvgo516JGdfBZ8zM73bQ-TCeNEbOp9ioBy9jh0AAtpUsu5tOg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=emil.l.velikov@gmail.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=emil.velikov@collabora.com \
--cc=gustavo.padovan@collabora.com \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robert.foss@collabora.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).