[PATCH v3 1/2] dma-buf: Split out dma fence array create into alloc and arm functions

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 03:46:05PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:37:30AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 23.08.24 um 06:54 schrieb Matthew Brost:
> > > Useful to preallocate dma fence array and then arm in path of reclaim or
> > > a dma fence.
> > 
> > Exactly that was rejected before because it allows to create circle
> > dependencies.
> > 
> 
> Can you explain or do you have link to that discussion? Trying to think
> how this would be problematic and failing to see how it is. 
> 
> > You would need a really really good argument why that is necessary.
> >
> 
> It seems quite useful when you have a code path in which you know N fences
> will be generated, prealloc a dma fence array, then populate at
> later time ensuring no failures points (malloc), and then finally
> install dma fence array in timeline sync obj (chain fences not allowed).
> 
> It fits nicely for VM bind operations in which a device has multple
> TLBs and the TLB invalidation completion is a fence. I suspect Intel
> can't be the only device out their with multiple TLBs, does VM bind, and
> use timeline sync obj.

I think the naming you've picked is a bit confusion, since all you're
splitting out is the kzalloc call. At that point the dma_fence_array isn't
yet useable as a fence, so there's no issues with with circles. It's only
when you call _arm that it becomes a real fence.

I think just renaming _arm to _init, so that we follow the standard naming
pattern for splitting _create() into kzalloc and everything else is all
that's needed here?

Plus updating the kernel doc to make it really clear that _alloc doesn't
give you a fence, just a pile of memory. And that _init must be called
with a compatible amount of fences, or it'll fail.
-Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch