then what point we return when somebody asks for 11?But I've came up with something which should work. Assume the original chain is: 1----3----6----9----12---18 And we garbage collect everything but 6 and 18 then all we need to know to return the correct node is what the original previous sequence number was. 6 (3)----18 (12) When then somebody asks for 17 we can still return 18 and if somebody asks for 9 we would return 6.
Sorry, I forgot it, quote from spec: "Another use case, I'm not sure if you considered: if chain is 1----3----6----9----12---18, a wait operation is on point 17, then we return 18, another signal point 17 comes, then we still wait on 18(assume 18 takes very long time), that looks not reseonable, but this is just performance problem potientially. Seems the way of timeline sw_sync.c with comparing point for signal status can sovle it.Well I thought that we declared that signaling lower numbers is illegal?*RESOLVED*: A 64-bit unsigned integer that can only be set to monotonically
increasing values by signal operations and is not changed by wait operations."
Can we think signaling lower numbers is forbidden?
If that's true, we can directly ignore lower number and return without error, keep the larger signal point.
Thanks,
David
My current solution to that is when userspace messes up the sequence numbers and submit 1-3-6-9-12-18-17 we start a new chain with 17 and never look back. E.g. when somebody then asks for anything below 17 we always return 17 and if somebody asks for 18 we return an error because that is handled as not signaled yet. Regards, Christian.-DavidThanks, Christian.Regards, Christian.You can also check sw_sync.c for timeline meaning. -DavidChristian.-Davidb. garbage collection happens on point6, chain would be updated to 1---3---9---12---18---20, if user wants to get point5, then we should return node 3, but if user wants to get point 7, then we should return node 9.Why? That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.I still have no idea how to satisfy all these requirements with your current chain-fence. All these logic just are same we encountered before, we're walking them again. After solving these problems, I guess all design is similar as before. In fact, I don't know what problem previous design has, maybe there are some bugs, can't we fix these bugs by time going? Who can make sure his implementation never have bugs?Well there where numerous problems with the original design. For example we need to reject the requirement that timeline fences are in order because that doesn't make sense in the kernel. When userspace does something like submitting fences in the order 1, 5, 3 then it is broken and can keep the pieces. In other words the kernel should not care about that, but rather make sure that it never looses any synchronization no matter what. Regards, Christian.-David+ } } + drm_syncobj_put(syncobj); return ret; }_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel