[PATCH v4 06/14] dma-buf/sync_file: Support (E)POLLPRI

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:53:56 -0800
Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:48 AM Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov at amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-02-20 11:14, Rob Clark wrote:  
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 12:53 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:15:49 -0800
> > >> Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>  
> > >>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
> > >>>
> > >>> Allow userspace to use the EPOLLPRI/POLLPRI flag to indicate an urgent
> > >>> wait (as opposed to a "housekeeping" wait to know when to cleanup after
> > >>> some work has completed).  Usermode components of GPU driver stacks
> > >>> often poll() on fence fd's to know when it is safe to do things like
> > >>> free or reuse a buffer, but they can also poll() on a fence fd when
> > >>> waiting to read back results from the GPU.  The EPOLLPRI/POLLPRI flag
> > >>> lets the kernel differentiate these two cases.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>  
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> where would the UAPI documentation of this go?
> > >> It seems to be missing.  
> > >
> > > Good question, I am not sure.  The poll() man page has a description,
> > > but my usage doesn't fit that _exactly_ (but OTOH the description is a
> > > bit vague).
> > >  
> > >> If a Wayland compositor is polling application fences to know which
> > >> client buffer to use in its rendering, should the compositor poll with
> > >> PRI or not? If a compositor polls with PRI, then all fences from all
> > >> applications would always be PRI. Would that be harmful somehow or
> > >> would it be beneficial?  
> > >
> > > I think a compositor would rather use the deadline ioctl and then poll
> > > without PRI.  Otherwise you are giving an urgency signal to the fence
> > > signaller which might not necessarily be needed.
> > >
> > > The places where I expect PRI to be useful is more in mesa (things
> > > like glFinish(), readpix, and other similar sorts of blocking APIs)  
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hmm, but then user-space could do the opposite, namely, submit work as usual--never
> > using the SET_DEADLINE ioctl, and then at the end, poll using (E)POLLPRI. That seems
> > like a possible usage pattern, unintended--maybe, but possible. Do we want to discourage
> > this? Wouldn't SET_DEADLINE be enough? I mean, one can call SET_DEADLINE with the current
> > time, and then wouldn't that be equivalent to (E)POLLPRI?  
> 
> Yeah, (E)POLLPRI isn't strictly needed if we have SET_DEADLINE.  It is
> slightly more convenient if you want an immediate deadline (single
> syscall instead of two), but not strictly needed.  OTOH it piggy-backs
> on existing UABI.

In that case, I would be conservative, and not add the POLLPRI
semantics. An UAPI addition that is not strictly needed and somewhat
unclear if it violates any design principles is best not done, until it
is proven to be beneficial.

Besides, a Wayland compositor does not necessary need to add the fd
to its main event loop for poll. It could just SET_DEADLINE, and then
when it renders simply check if the fence passed or not already. Not
polling means the compositor does not need to wake up at the moment the
fence signals to just record a flag.

On another matter, if the application uses SET_DEADLINE with one
timestamp, and the compositor uses SET_DEADLINE on the same thing with
another timestamp, what should happen?

Maybe it's a soft-realtime app whose primary goal is not display, and
it needs the result faster than the window server?

Maybe SET_DEADLINE should set the deadline only to an earlier timestamp
and never later?


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20230222/b313cabb/attachment.sig>