From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932651AbcASRwj (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:52:39 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-f182.google.com ([209.85.160.182]:33958 "EHLO mail-yk0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932590AbcASRwa (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:52:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:26 -0200 From: Gustavo Padovan To: John Harrison Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, daniels@collabora.com, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Riley Andrews , Rob Clark , Greg Hackmann , Maarten Lankhorst , Gustavo Padovan Subject: Re: [RFC 00/29] De-stage android's sync framework Message-ID: <20160119175226.GB8217@joana> Mail-Followup-To: Gustavo Padovan , John Harrison , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, daniels@collabora.com, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Riley Andrews , Rob Clark , Greg Hackmann , Maarten Lankhorst , Gustavo Padovan References: <1452869739-3304-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <20160119110017.GZ19130@phenom.ffwll.local> <20160119152309.GA8217@joana> <569E6062.6030309@Intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <569E6062.6030309@Intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2016-01-19 John Harrison : > On 19/01/2016 15:23, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > >Hi Daniel, > > > >2016-01-19 Daniel Vetter : > > > >>On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:55:10PM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > >>>From: Gustavo Padovan > >>> > >>>This patch series de-stage the sync framework, and in order to accomplish that > >>>a bunch of cleanups/improvements on the sync and fence were made. > >>> > >>>The sync framework contained some abstractions around struct fence and those > >>>were removed in the de-staging process among other changes: > >>> > >>>Userspace visible changes > >>>------------------------- > >>> > >>> * The sw_sync file was moved from /dev/sw_sync to /sync/sw_sync. No > >>> other change. > >>> > >>>Kernel API changes > >>>------------------ > >>> > >>> * struct sync_timeline is now struct fence_timeline > >>> * sync_timeline_ops is now fence_timeline_ops and they now carry struct > >>> fence as parameter instead of struct sync_pt > >>> * a .cleanup() fence op was added to allow sync_fence to run a cleanup when > >>> the fence_timeline is destroyed > >>> * added fence_add_used_data() to pass a private point to struct fence. This > >>> pointer is sent back on the .cleanup op. > >>> * The sync timeline function were moved to be fence_timeline functions: > >>> - sync_timeline_create() -> fence_timeline_create() > >>> - sync_timeline_get() -> fence_timeline_get() > >>> - sync_timeline_put() -> fence_timeline_put() > >>> - sync_timeline_destroy() -> fence_timeline_destroy() > >>> - sync_timeline_signal() -> fence_timeline_signal() > >>> > >>> * sync_pt_create() was replaced be fence_create_on_timeline() > >>> > >>>Internal changes > >>>---------------- > >>> > >>> * fence_timeline_ops was removed in favor of direct use fence_ops > >>> * fence default functions were created for fence_ops > >>> * removed structs sync_pt, sw_sync_timeline and sw_sync_pt > >>Bunch of fairly random comments all over: > >> > >>- include/uapi/linux/sw_sync.h imo should be dropped, it's just a private > >> debugfs interface between fence fds and the testsuite. Since the plan is > >> to have the testcases integrated into the kernel tree too we don't need > >> a public header. > >> > >>- similar for include/linux/sw_sync.h Imo that should all be moved into > >> sync_debug.c. Same for sw_sync.c, that should all land in sync_debug > >> imo, and made optional with a Kconfig option. At least we should reuse > >> CONFIG_DEBUGFS. > >These two items sounds reasonable to me. > > I have just posted our in-progress IGT for testing i915 syncs (with a CC of > Gustavo). It uses the sw_sync mechanisms. Can you take a quick look and see > if it is the kind of thing you would expect us to be doing? Or is it using > interfaces that you are planning to remove and/or make kernel only? > > I'm not sure having a kernel only test is the best way to go. Having user > land tests like IGT would be much more versatile. I agree with you, we should allow IGT and other test tools to access sw_sync. include/linux/sw_sync.h can be kept private, but the uapi one needs wil be needed for testing, unless we replicate the header file inside IGT, but not sure if it is a good idea. Gustavo