On 16/05/2025 10:53, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:33:30AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 24/04/2025 10:55, Philipp Stanner wrote:
+ * @kill_fence_context: kill the fence context belonging to this
scheduler
Which fence context would that be? ;)
There's one one per ring and a scheduler instance represents a single ring. So,
what should be specified here?
I was pointing out the fact not all drivers are 1:1 sched:entity. So
plural at least. Thought it would be obvious from the ";)".
Also, "fence context" would be a new terminology in gpu_scheduler.h API
level. You could call it ->sched_fini() or similar to signify at which point
in the API it gets called and then the fact it takes sched as parameter
would be natural.
The driver should tear down the fence context in this callback, not the while
scheduler. ->sched_fini() would hence be misleading.
Not the while what? Not while drm_sched_fini()? Could call it
sched_kill() or anything. My point is that we dont' have "fence context"
in the API but entities so adding a new term sounds sub-optimal.
We also probably want some commentary on the topic of indefinite (or very
long at least) blocking a thread exit / SIGINT/TERM/KILL time.
You mean in case the driver does implement the callback, but does *not* properly
tear down the fence context? So, you ask for describing potential consequences
of drivers having bugs in the implementation of the callback? Or something else?
I was proposing the kerneldoc for the vfunc should document the callback
must not block, or if blocking is unavoidable, either document a
guideline on how long is acceptable. Maybe even enforce a limit in the
scheduler core itself.
Regards,
Tvrtko
