From: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:26:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33e4711c-87dc-de98-a9da-33470f5ee083@xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170911131846.GA7552@jade>
On 09/11/2017 03:18 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>:
>
>> On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>>>> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>> - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>>>> - rework for the new API
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
>>>> index 1f3612637200..fae0b1431672 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst
>>>> @@ -117,6 +117,37 @@ immediately with an ``EAGAIN`` error code when no buffer is available.
>>>> The struct :c:type:`v4l2_buffer` structure is specified in
>>>> :ref:`buffer`.
>>>>
>>>> +Explicit Synchronization
>>>> +------------------------
>>>> +
>>>> +Explicit Synchronization allows us to control the synchronization of
>>>> +shared buffers from userspace by passing fences to the kernel and/or
>>>> +receiving them from it. Fences passed to the kernel are named in-fences and
>>>> +the kernel should wait them to signal before using the buffer, i.e., queueing
>>>
>>> wait them -> wait on them
>>>
>>> (do you wait 'on' a fence or 'for' a fence? I think it's 'on' but I'm not 100% sure)
>>>
>>>> +it to the driver. On the other side, the kernel can create out-fences for the
>>>> +buffers it queues to the drivers, out-fences signal when the driver is
>>>
>>> Start a new sentence here: ...drivers. Out-fences...
>>>
>>>> +finished with buffer, that is the buffer is ready. The fence are represented
>>>
>>> s/that is/i.e/
>>>
>>> s/The fence/The fences/
>>>
>>>> +by file and passed as file descriptor to userspace.
>>>
>>> s/by file/as a file/
>>> s/as file/as a file/
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +The in-fences are communicated to the kernel at the ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` ioctl
>>>> +using the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` buffer
>>>> +flags and the `fence_fd` field. If an in-fence needs to be passed to the kernel,
>>>> +`fence_fd` should be set to the fence file descriptor number and the
>>>> +``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_IN_FENCE`` should be set as well. Failure to set both will
>>>
>>> s/Failure to set both/Setting one but not the other/
>>>
>>>> +cause ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` to return with error.
>>>> +
>>>> +To get a out-fence back from V4L2 the ``V4L2_BUF_FLAG_OUT_FENCE`` flag should
>>>> +be set to notify it that the next queued buffer should have a fence attached to
>>>> +it. That means the out-fence may not be associated with the buffer in the
>>>> +current ``VIDIOC_QBUF`` ioctl call because the ordering in which videobuf2 core
>>>> +queues the buffers to the drivers can't be guaranteed. To become aware of the
>>>> +of the next queued buffer and the out-fence attached to it the
>>>> +``V4L2_EVENT_BUF_QUEUED`` event should be used. It will trigger an event
>>>> +for every buffer queued to the V4L2 driver.
>>>
>>> This makes no sense.
>>>
>>> Setting this flag means IMHO that when *this* buffer is queued up to the driver,
>>> then it should send the BUF_QUEUED event with an out fence.
>>>
>>> I.e. it signals that userspace wants to have the out-fence. The requirement w.r.t.
>>> ordering is that the BUF_QUEUED events have to be in order, but that is something
>>> that the driver can ensure in the case it is doing internal re-ordering.
>>>
>>> This requirement is something that needs to be documented here, BTW.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the flag shouldn't refer to some 'next buffer', since that's very confusing.
>>
>> Just ignore this comment. I assume v4 will implement it like this.
>
> What approach do you mean by "like this". I'm confused now. :)
>
> In fact, I was in doubt between these two different approaches here.
> Should the flag mean *this* or the *next* buffer? The buffers can still
> be reordered at the videobuf2 level, because they might be waiting on
> in-fences and the fences may signal out of order. Then I went for the
> *next* buffer approach because we don't know that buffer for sure.
> But now thinking on this again we shouldn't have problems with the
> *this* buffer approach also.
It should mean *this* buffer. It's really weird to set this flag for one
buffer, only for it to mean 'next' buffer.
Keep it simple: the flag just means: send me the output fence fd for this
buffer once you have it. If it is not set, then no BUF_QUEUE event is sent.
Actually, it could mean one of two things: either if it is not set, then no
BUF_QUEUE event is sent, or if it is not set, then the fd in the BUF_QUEUE
event is -1.
I'm leaning towards the first. I can't see any use-case for sending that
event if you are not requesting out fences.
Regards,
Hans
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +At streamoff the out-fences will either signal normally if the drivers wait
>>>
>>> s/drivers wait/driver waits/
>>>
>>>> +for the operations on the buffers to finish or signal with error if the
>>>> +driver cancel the pending operations.
>>>
>>> s/cancel/cancels/
>>>
>>> Thinking with my evil hat on:
>>>
>>> What happens if the application dequeues the buffer (VIDIOC_DQBUF) before
>>> dequeuing the BUF_QUEUED event? Or if the application doesn't call VIDIOC_DQEVENT
>>> at all? Should any pending BUF_QUEUED event with an out fence be removed from the
>>> event queue if the application calls DQBUF on the corresponding buffer?
>
> Good catch, we need to clean that up.
>
> Gustavo
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-11 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-07 18:42 [PATCH v3 00/15] V4L2 Explicit Synchronization support Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-08 2:39 ` Nicolas Dufresne
2017-09-11 10:50 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-09-11 11:01 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-09-11 13:18 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-11 13:26 ` Hans Verkuil [this message]
2017-09-11 13:34 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-11 13:35 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] [media] vb2: add explicit fence user API Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-11 10:55 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-09-11 11:03 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-10-02 13:42 ` Brian Starkey
2017-10-04 20:12 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] [media] vb2: check earlier if stream can be started Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] [media] vb2: add in-fence support to QBUF Gustavo Padovan
2017-10-02 13:43 ` Brian Starkey
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] [media] uvc: enable subscriptions to other events Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] [media] vivid: assign the specific device to the vb2_queue->dev Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] [media] v4l: add V4L2_EVENT_BUF_QUEUED event Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] [media] vb2: add .buffer_queued() to notify queueing in the driver Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] [media] v4l: add support to BUF_QUEUED event Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] [media] vb2: add 'ordered' property to queues Gustavo Padovan
2017-10-02 13:43 ` Brian Starkey
2017-10-04 20:18 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] [media] vivid: mark vivid queues as ordered Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] [media] vb2: add videobuf2 dma-buf fence helpers Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] [media] vb2: add infrastructure to support out-fences Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] fs/files: export close_fd() symbol Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:51 ` Eric Biggers
2017-09-07 20:36 ` Al Viro
2017-09-07 21:22 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 22:03 ` Al Viro
2017-09-07 22:09 ` Hans Verkuil
2017-09-07 22:18 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-09-07 18:42 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] [media] vb2: add out-fence support to QBUF Gustavo Padovan
2017-10-02 13:41 ` [PATCH v3 00/15] V4L2 Explicit Synchronization support Brian Starkey
2017-10-04 20:08 ` Gustavo Padovan
2017-10-13 1:56 ` Brian Starkey
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=33e4711c-87dc-de98-a9da-33470f5ee083@xs4all.nl \
--to=hverkuil@xs4all.nl \
--cc=gustavo.padovan@collabora.com \
--cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=shuahkh@osg.samsung.com \
/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).