oo.ham; DRI mailing list; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > I think I already used reservation stuff any tim
t; Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
ev-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-fbdev-
> > > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rob Clark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:48 AM
> > > To: Inki Dae
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho;
> Kyungmin
> &
I mailing list; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way exc
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way except
> ww-mutex. And I'm not sure that embedded system really needs ww-mutex. If
> there is any case,
> could you tell me the case? I really need more advice and understanding :)
If
oo.ham; DRI mailing list; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
t; Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I
t; > To: Inki Dae
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
> > Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> > linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer
Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Hey,
>
> Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> > H
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way except
> ww-mutex. And I'm not sure that embedded system really needs ww-mutex. If
> there is any case,
> could you tell me the case? I really need more advice and understanding :)
If
Dae
>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
>> Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;
>> linux-media at vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
27;; 'linux-fbdev'; 'YoungJun Cho'; 'Kyungmin
>> Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
>> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronizatio
rk; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -Original Mes
..@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-fbdev-
> > > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Rob Clark
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12:48 AM
> > > To: Inki Dae
> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho;
> Kyungmin
> > > Par
;> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
>> Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
>> linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
: Inki Dae
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst; Daniel Vetter; linux-fbdev; YoungJun Cho; Kyungmin
> > Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> > linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchroniz
27;; 'linux-fbdev'; 'YoungJun Cho'; 'Kyungmin
>> Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
>> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>&g
iling list; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >>
rk; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org;
> linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been
gt; Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Hey,
>
> Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> > Hi all,
Hi all,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
coupling those two things, synchronizing caches and buffer access betwe
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
>> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
>> operation relevant codes
Hey,
Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling those tw
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling t
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
>> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
>> operation relevant codes
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling t
Hey,
Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
> This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
> operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
> coupling those tw
Hi all,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
This time, the fence helper doesn't include user side interfaces and cache
operation relevant codes anymore because not only we are not sure that
coupling those two things, synchronizing caches and buffer access betwe
Cho; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Daniel Vetter
'Rob Clark'; 'linux-fbdev'; 'DRI mailing list';
>> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
>> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framew
un Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vet...@
'Rob Clark'; 'linux-fbdev'; 'DRI mailing list';
>> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
>> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffe
;
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +09
; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-
> media at vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:13:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 03:47:43PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > > 2
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > - Integration of fence syncing into dma_buf. Imo we should have a
> > per-attachment mode which decides whether map/unmap (and the new sync)
> > should wait for fences or whether the driver takes care of syncing
> > through the new
t; 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +0900, Inki Dae wro
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 04:03:06PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > - Integration of fence syncing into dma_buf. Imo we should have a
> > per-attachment mode which decides whether map/unmap (and the new sync)
> > should wait for fences or whether the driver takes care of syncing
> > through the new
.@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> me...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:13:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 03:47:43PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > > 2013/5/15
gt; >> YoungJun
> > > >> Cho; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at
> > > >> vger.kernel.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer
> > > >> synchronization
> > > >>
> >
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 PM
> > >> To: Inki Dae
> > >> Cc: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun
> > >> Cho; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at
> > >> vger.kernel.org
> >
t; >> YoungJun
> > > >> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer
> > > >> synchronization
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, May 13, 2
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 PM
> > >> To: Inki Dae
> > >> Cc: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun
> > >> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> > >> Subject: Re: In
Hi Daniel,
2013/5/17 Daniel Vetter
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and
> > synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the
> > same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make thing
: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun
> >> Cho; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at
> >> vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
> >>
> >> On Mon, May
Hi Daniel,
2013/5/17 Daniel Vetter
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and
> > synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the
> > same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make thing
: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun
> >> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 P
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and
> synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the
> same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make things more
> complex than they otherwise need to b
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and
> synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the
> same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make things more
> complex than they otherwise need to b
rnel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
> >> really catch that this was the motivation fr
YoungJun
>> Cho; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >> well, for cache management, I t
.ham; YoungJun
>> Cho; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a bet
.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
> >> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial
rnel.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> >
>
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
>> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial patch, but
>> maybe I read it too quickly. But cache can be decoupled from
>> synchronization, because CPU access i
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
>> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial patch, but
>> maybe I read it too quickly. But cache can be decoupled from
>> synchronization, because CPU access i
2013/5/13 Rob Clark
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
> I
> >> don't see any way that can end well.
> >> What if userspace never signals? What if userspace gets killed by oom
> >> killer. Who keeps
x27;; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> > kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org;
> > 'linux-fbdev';
> > 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper frame
7;DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-0
rg; linux-media at vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-05-13 11:21, Inki Dae schreef:
> >
> >> -Or
.org
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >> >
>
l.org; linux-fbdev;
> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
>
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>
> 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >
>> >> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
>> >> I
>> >> don't see any way that can end well.
>> >> What if userspace never si
Op 13-05-13 13:24, Inki Dae schreef:
>> and can be solved with userspace locking primitives. No need for the
>> kernel to get involved.
>>
> Yes, that is how we have synchronized buffer between CPU and DMA device
> until now without buffer synchronization mechanism. I thought that it's best
> to ma
tter'; 'DRI mailing list'; linux-arm-
> > ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org;
> > 'linux-fbdev';
> > 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> > Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for
t; kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev;
>> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
>>> Hi all,
>>
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>
> 2013/5/13 Rob Clark
>>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>> >
>> >> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
>> >> I
>> >> don't see any way that can end well.
>> >> What if userspace never si
2013/5/13 Rob Clark
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> >
> >> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
> I
> >> don't see any way that can end well.
> >> What if userspace never signals? What if userspace gets killed by oom
> >> killer. Who keeps
Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
> purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
> posting.
>
> First of all, this helper framework, called fence helper, is in progress
> yet so migh
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences. I
>> don't see any way that can end well.
>> What if userspace never signals? What if userspace gets killed by oom
>> killer. Who keeps track of that?
>>
>
> In all cases,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>> In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences. I
>> don't see any way that can end well.
>> What if userspace never signals? What if userspace gets killed by oom
>> killer. Who keeps track of that?
>>
>
> In all cases,
t'; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-05-13 13:24, Ink
Op 13-05-13 13:24, Inki Dae schreef:
>> and can be solved with userspace locking primitives. No need for the
>> kernel to get involved.
>>
> Yes, that is how we have synchronized buffer between CPU and DMA device
> until now without buffer synchronization mechanism. I thought that it's best
> to ma
d.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org; 'linux-fbdev';
> 'Kyungmin Park'; 'myungjoo.ham'; 'YoungJun Cho'
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 13-05-13 11:21, Inki Dae schreef:
> >
> >> -Original M
t; ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-me...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fbdev;
>> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
>> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>>
>> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>&
v;
> Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun Cho
> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
>
> Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
> >
Op 09-05-13 09:33, Inki Dae schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
> purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
> posting.
>
> First of all, this helper framework, called fence helper, is in progress
> yet so migh
Hi all,
This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
posting.
First of all, this helper framework, called fence helper, is in progress
yet so might not have enough comments in codes and also might
Hi all,
This post introduces a new helper framework based on dma fence. And the
purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
posting.
First of all, this helper framework, called fence helper, is in progress
yet so might not have enough comments in codes and also might
78 matches
Mail list logo
