Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Hans Verkuil]

On 09/11/2017 03:34 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :
> 
>> On 09/11/2017 03:18 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>>> 2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :
>>>
 On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>> From: Gustavo Padovan 
>>
>> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
>>
>> v2:
>>  - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>>  - rework for the new API
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
>> ---
>>  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 

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Gustavo Padovan]

2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :

> On 09/11/2017 03:18 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > 2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :
> > 
> >> On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> >>> On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>  From: Gustavo Padovan 
> 
>  Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
> 
>  v2:
>   - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>   - rework for the new API
> 
>  Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
>  ---
>   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 

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Hans Verkuil]

On 09/11/2017 03:18 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> 2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :
> 
>> On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
 From: Gustavo Padovan 

 Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it

 v2:
- mention that fences are files (Hans)
- rework for the new API

 Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
 ---
  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

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Gustavo Padovan]

2017-09-11 Hans Verkuil :

> On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> > On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> >> From: Gustavo Padovan 
> >>
> >> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
> >>
> >> v2:
> >>- mention that fences are files (Hans)
> >>- rework for the new API
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
> >> ---
> >>  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.

> 
> 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 

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Hans Verkuil]

On 09/11/2017 12:50 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>> From: Gustavo Padovan 
>>
>> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
>>
>> v2:
>>  - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>>  - rework for the new API
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
>> ---
>>  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.

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?
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   Hans
> 
>>  
>>  Return Value
>>  
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Hans Verkuil]

On 09/07/2017 08:42 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan 
> 
> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
> 
> v2:
>   - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>   - rework for the new API
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
> ---
>  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.

> +
> +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?

Regards,

Hans

>  
>  Return Value
>  
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 01/15] [media] v4l: Document explicit synchronization behaviour

[Nicolas Dufresne]

Le jeudi 07 septembre 2017 à 15:42 -0300, Gustavo Padovan a écrit :
> From: Gustavo Padovan 
> 
> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF about it
> 
> v2:
>   - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>   - rework for the new API
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan 
> ---
>  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
> +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
> +finished with buffer, that is the buffer is ready. The fence are represented
> +by file and passed as file descriptor to userspace.

I think the API works to deliver the fence FD userspace, though for the
userspace I maintain (GStreamer) it's often the case that the buffer is
unusable without the associated timestamp.

Let's consider the capture to display case (V4L2 -> DRM). As soon as
you add audio capture to the loop, GStreamer will need to start dealing
with synchronization. We can't just blindly give that buffer to the
display, we need to make sure this buffer makes it on time, in a way
that it is synchronized with the audio. To deal with synchronization,
we need to be able to correlate the video image capture time with the
audio capture time.

The problem is that this timestamp is only delivered when DQBUF
succeed, which is after the fence has unblocked. This makes the fences
completely unusable for that purpose. In general, to achieve very low
latency and still have synchronization, we'll probably need the
timestamp to be delivered somehow before the image transfer have
complete. Obviously, this is only possible if we have timestamp with
flag V4L2_BUF_FLAG_TSTAMP_SRC_SOE.

On another note, for m2m drivers that behave as color converters and
scalers, with ordered queues, userspace knows the timestamp already, so
 using the proposed API and passing the buffer immediately with it's
fence is really going to help.

For encoded (compressed) data, similar issues will be found with the
bytesused member of struct v4l2_buffer. We'll need to know the size of
the encoded data before we can pass it to another driver. I'm not sure
how relevant fences are for this type of data.

> +
> +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
> +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

"of the" is repeated twice.

> +``V4L2_EVENT_BUF_QUEUED`` event should be used. It will trigger an event
> +for every buffer queued to the V4L2 driver.
> +
> +At streamoff the out-fences will either signal normally if the drivers wait
> +for the operations on the buffers to finish or signal with error if the
> +driver cancel the pending operations.
>  
>  Return Value
>