On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 15:20:18 +0000 Steven Price <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18/03/2026 14:51, Marcin Ślusarz wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 01:10:30PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:29:52 +0100 > >> Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Flags now control which data user space wants to query, > >>> there is more information sources, and there's ability > >>> to query duration of multiple timestamp reads. > >>> > >>> New sources: > >>> - CPU's monotonic, > >>> - CPU's monotonic raw, > >>> - GPU's cycle count > >>> > >>> These changes should make the implementation of > >>> VK_KHR_calibrated_timestamps more accurate and much simpler. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> This is counter proposal to > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >>> include/uapi/drm/panthor_drm.h | 51 ++++++++++- > >>> 2 files changed, 166 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c > >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c > >>> index 165dddfde6ca..19ede20a578e 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_drv.c > >>> @@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ > >>> #include <linux/pagemap.h> > >>> #include <linux/platform_device.h> > >>> #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > >>> +#include <linux/sched/clock.h> > >>> #include <linux/time64.h> > >>> +#include <linux/time_namespace.h> > >>> > >>> #include <drm/drm_auth.h> > >>> #include <drm/drm_debugfs.h> > >>> @@ -762,21 +764,123 @@ static void panthor_submit_ctx_cleanup(struct > >>> panthor_submit_ctx *ctx, > >>> } > >>> > >>> static int panthor_query_timestamp_info(struct panthor_device *ptdev, > >>> - struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info *arg) > >>> + struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info *arg, > >>> + u32 size) > >>> { > >>> int ret; > >>> + u32 flags; > >>> + unsigned long irq_flags; > >>> + struct timespec64 cpu_ts; > >>> + u64 query_start_time; > >>> + bool minimize_interruption; > >>> + u32 timestamp_types = 0; > >>> + > >>> + if (size >= offsetof(struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info, pad1) + > >>> sizeof(arg->pad1) && > >>> + arg->pad1 != 0) > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + > >>> + if (size >= offsetof(struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info, flags) + > >>> sizeof(arg->flags)) > >>> + flags = arg->flags; > >>> + else > >>> + flags = DRM_PANTHOR_TIMESTAMP_GPU | > >>> + DRM_PANTHOR_TIMESTAMP_GPU_OFFSET | > >>> + DRM_PANTHOR_TIMESTAMP_FREQ; > >> > >> How about we add a DRM_PANTHOR_TIMESTAMP_ADVANCED_QUERY flag that tells > >> the driver whether the default should be picked or not instead of this > >> weird is-this-the-new-or-old-struct detection based on the size. > > > > Well, as is, we would read uninitialized data from kernel stack if > > user passed old struct with the original size. It's fixable, but > > I'm not sure why you think checking size to detect the use of new > > interface is weird. I thought it's a pretty standard thing. > > What you need is copy_struct_from_user() - it will zero any fields that > user space didn't provide. So adding a flags field to the end of the > struct will be guaranteed to be zero with old (binary of) user space. This ^. > > This is the standard way of extending an API. If user space is > recompiled with new headers then user space will pass in the larger size > (because it uses sizeof()), but will zero initialise any fields that it > doesn't know about. If you look purely at the size passed by userspace > then the sizeof() will be wrong and no flags will get set. > > > If the conclusion will be that checking size must be dropped, then > > I think looking at flags being non-zero would be enough - there's > > no need for new special flag that says other bits mean something. > > That would be fine if we don't want the 'default' flags behaviour you > have above. So either GPU/GPU_OFFSET/FREQ are unconditionally enabled or > you need to reverse the meaning of those flags. Right, if you don't want the extra ADVANCED_QUERY flag, the GPU, GPU_OFFSET and FREQ flags need to be opt-out, but that's a bit confusing if the other flags are opt-in. > Or of course go with > Boris's suggestion of a flag to enable the new behaviour. > > [...] > > >>> /** > >>> * struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info - Timestamp information > >>> * > >>> @@ -421,11 +450,29 @@ struct drm_panthor_timestamp_info { > >>> */ > >>> __u64 timestamp_frequency; > >>> > >>> - /** @current_timestamp: The current timestamp. */ > >>> + /** @current_timestamp: The current GPU timestamp. */ > >>> __u64 current_timestamp; > >>> > >>> - /** @timestamp_offset: The offset of the timestamp timer. */ > >>> + /** @timestamp_offset: The offset of the GPU timestamp timer. */ > >>> __u64 timestamp_offset; > >>> + > >>> + /** @flags: Bitmask of drm_panthor_timestamp_info_flags. */ > >>> + __u32 flags; > >>> + > >>> + /** @duration_nsec: Duration of time query. */ > >>> + __u32 duration_nsec; > >>> + > >>> + /** @cycle_count: Value of GPU_CYCLE_COUNT. */ > >>> + __u64 cycle_count; > >>> + > >>> + /** @cpu_timestamp_sec: Seconds part of CPU timestamp. */ > >>> + __u64 cpu_timestamp_sec; > >>> + > >>> + /** @cpu_timestamp_nsec: Nanseconds part of CPU timestamp. */ > >>> + __u32 cpu_timestamp_nsec; > >>> + > >>> + /** @pad1: Padding, MBZ. */ > >>> + __u32 pad1; > >> > >> Let's re-purpose the existing pad field into flags, move duration_nsec > >> after > >> cpu_timestamp_nsec, and get rid of this pad1. > > > > I'm not sure I understand. Do you want me to extend flags to u64? > > What's the point of that? > > I'm not sure I necessarily understand Boris's comment either, but I > would suggest making flags u64 would be better. I was confused by the fact the field was named pad1, and I assumed there was a pad field already present in the struct, which is why I suggested re-purposing that one instead of adding a new field that would in turn require extra padding. Given there's no pre-existing padding, I'd rename pad1 into pad and call it a day. > > By shuffling things around to have a u64 flags you no longer have any > padding fields. And the unused part of the flags will be naturally > checked for being 0 rather than the explicit check for pad1 you > currently have. > > Not a big deal to me - but it's easier to just avoid padding fields > where possible as they often get overlooked in the validation. We certainly want to ensure they are, this way we can re-purpose existing padding fields instead of adding new ones when we need to extend the logic.
