Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query v2

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:47:49AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 28 April 2017 at 07:27, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > > 2017-04-26 Christian König : > > > >> Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez: > >> > When a timeout of zero is specified, the

Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query v2

On 28 April 2017 at 07:27, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > 2017-04-26 Christian König : > >> Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez: >> > When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in >> > the fence status. >> > >> > In the

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query v2

2017-04-26 Christian König : > Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez: > > When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in > > the fence status. > > > > In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call > >

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query v2

Am 26.04.2017 um 16:46 schrieb Andres Rodriguez: When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in the fence status. In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a significant

[PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query v2

When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in the fence status. In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a significant overhead to a fence status query. Avoid this overhead

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

On 2017-04-26 06:13 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 26.04.2017 um 11:59 schrieb Dave Airlie: On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König wrote: NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should probably add a comment here. Even with a zero timeout

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

Am 26.04.2017 um 11:59 schrieb Dave Airlie: On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König wrote: NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should probably add a comment here. Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise some

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

On 26 April 2017 at 17:20, Christian König wrote: > NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should > probably add a comment here. > > Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise some > fence will never signal if userspace

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

NAK, I'm wondering how often I have to reject that change. We should probably add a comment here. Even with a zero timeout we still need to enable signaling, otherwise some fence will never signal if userspace just polls on them. If a caller is only interested in the fence status without

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

CC a few extra lists I missed. Regards, Andres On 2017-04-25 09:36 PM, Andres Rodriguez wrote: When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in the fence status. In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call schedule_timeout() at least once for an

[PATCH] dma-buf: avoid scheduling on fence status query

When a timeout of zero is specified, the caller is only interested in the fence status. In the current implementation, dma_fence_default_wait will always call schedule_timeout() at least once for an unsignaled fence. This adds a significant overhead to a fence status query. Avoid this overhead