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:
> >
> >
> >> -
rnel.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
> > > Park; myungjoo.ham; DRI mailing list;
> > linux-arm-kernel at lis
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
inux-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:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been removed previous branch and add
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
>
'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
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 27-05-13 12:38, Inki Dae
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,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
This time
; 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
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
Hi
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
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
Hi all
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
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki
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 inki@samsung.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: linux-fbdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
...@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 inki@samsung.com wrote:
I think I already used reservation stuff any time in that way except
ww-mutex. And I'm not sure
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
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
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
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
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 two
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
...@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,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more cleanup.
This time, the fence helper doesn't include user
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 inki@samsung.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have been removed previous branch and added new one with more
...@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 robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have been
un 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
k'; '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 Tue, May 21, 2013
';
'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 wrote:
- Integration of fence syncing
'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 +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
> > > - Integration of fence syncing into
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 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
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
> >
-
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 Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1
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 fence
...@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 wrote:
- Integration of fence syncing into dma_buf. Imo we should have a
per-attachment mode which decides
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: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae inki
[mailto:robdcl...@gmail.com]
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: Introduce a new helper framework
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
: 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
; 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 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com
wrote:
well, for cache management, I think it is a better
Hi Daniel,
2013/5/17 Daniel Vetter dan...@ffwll.ch
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com 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
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
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com 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
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 from th
m; 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 cac
a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
...@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 inki@samsung.com wrote:
well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't
really catch
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
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
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
g 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 13-05-13 1
inux-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 13-05-13 13:24, Inki Dae schreef:
> >> and can be solved
.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 Message-
> >> From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maar
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
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
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
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
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,
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 might not
; 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
purpose of this post is to collect other opinions and advices before RFC
; 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
purpose of this post is to collect other
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 Message-
From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maarten.lankho...@canonical.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Inki Dae
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 make user
-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, Inki Dae schreef:
and can be solved with userspace locking primitives. No need for the
kernel to get involved
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
2013/5/13 Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com 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
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
2013/5/13 Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
In that case you still wouldn't give userspace control over the fences.
I
don't see any way that can end
; 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 Message-
From: Maarten Lankhorst [mailto:maarten.lankho
a new helper framework for buffer synchronization
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
2013/5/13 Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Inki Dae inki@samsung.com wrote:
In that case you still wouldn't give userspace
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
77 matches
Mail list logo
