[PATCH 1/6] drm/ttm: Add unampping of the entire device address space
Thomas Hellström (Intel)
thomas_os at shipmail.org
Thu Jun 11 06:12:37 UTC 2020
On 6/10/20 11:16 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:30 PM Thomas Hellström (Intel)
> <thomas_os at shipmail.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/10/20 5:30 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 04:05:04PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 10.06.20 um 15:54 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>> On 6/10/20 6:15 AM, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/20 7:21 PM, Koenig, Christian wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 09.06.2020 18:37 schrieb "Grodzovsky, Andrey"
>>>>>>> <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/5/20 2:40 PM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> > Am 05.06.20 um 16:29 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 5/11/20 2:45 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>> >>> Am 09.05.20 um 20:51 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky at amd.com>
>>>>>>> >>>> ---
>>>>>>> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>> >>>> include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 2 ++
>>>>>>> >>>> 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> >>>> index c5b516f..eae61cc 100644
>>>>>>> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>>> >>>> @@ -1750,9 +1750,29 @@ void ttm_bo_unmap_virtual(struct
>>>>>>> >>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo)
>>>>>>> >>>> ttm_bo_unmap_virtual_locked(bo);
>>>>>>> >>>> ttm_mem_io_unlock(man);
>>>>>>> >>>> }
>>>>>>> >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_unmap_virtual);
>>>>>>> >>>> +void ttm_bo_unmap_virtual_address_space(struct
>>>>>>> ttm_bo_device *bdev)
>>>>>>> >>>> +{
>>>>>>> >>>> + struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man;
>>>>>>> >>>> + int i;
>>>>>>> >>>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_unmap_virtual);
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < TTM_NUM_MEM_TYPES; i++) {
>>>>>>> >>>> + man = &bdev->man[i];
>>>>>>> >>>> + if (man->has_type && man->use_type)
>>>>>>> >>>> + ttm_mem_io_lock(man, false);
>>>>>>> >>>> + }
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> You should drop that it will just result in a deadlock
>>>>>>> warning for
>>>>>>> >>> Nouveau and has no effect at all.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>> Apart from that looks good to me,
>>>>>>> >>> Christian.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> As I am considering to re-include this in V2 of the
>>>>>>> patchsets, can
>>>>>>> >> you clarify please why this will have no effect at all ?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > The locks are exclusive for Nouveau to allocate/free the io
>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>> > space.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Since we don't do this here we don't need the locks.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So basically calling unmap_mapping_range doesn't require any extra
>>>>>>> locking around it and whatever locks are taken within the function
>>>>>>> should be enough ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think so, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>> Yes, that's true. However, without the bo reservation, nothing stops
>>>>>> a PTE from being immediately re-faulted back again. Even while
>>>>>> unmap_mapping_range() is running.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain more on this - specifically, which function to reserve
>>>>> the BO, why BO reservation would prevent re-fault of the PTE ?
>>>>>
>>>> Thomas is talking about ttm_bo_reserver()/ttm_bo_unreserve(), but we don't
>>>> need this because we unmap everything because the whole device is gone and
>>>> not just manipulate a single BO.
>>>>
>>>>>> So the device removed flag needs to be advertized before this
>>>>>> function is run,
>>>>>>
>>>>> I indeed intend to call this right after calling drm_dev_unplug from
>>>>> amdgpu_pci_remove while adding drm_dev_enter/exit in ttm_bo_vm_fault (or
>>>>> in amdgpu specific wrapper since I don't see how can I access struct
>>>>> drm_device from ttm_bo_vm_fault) and this in my understanding should
>>>>> stop a PTE from being re-faulted back as you pointed out - so again I
>>>>> don't see how bo reservation would prevent it so it looks like I am
>>>>> missing something...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (perhaps with a memory barrier pair).
>>>>>>
>>>>> drm_dev_unplug and drm_dev_enter/exit are RCU synchronized and so I
>>>>> don't think require any extra memory barriers for visibility of the
>>>>> removed flag being set
>>>>>
>>>> As far as I can see that should be perfectly sufficient.
>>> Only if you have a drm_dev_enter/exit pair in your fault handler.
>>> Otherwise you're still open to the races Thomas described. But aside from
>>> that the drm_dev_unplug stuff has all the barriers and stuff to make sure
>>> nothing escapes.
>>>
>>> Failure to drm_dev_enter could then also trigger the special case where we
>>> put a dummy page in place.
>>> -Daniel
>> Hmm, Yes, indeed advertizing the flag before the call to
>> unmap_mapping_range isn't enough, since there might be fault handlers
>> running that haven't picked up the flag when unmap_mapping_range is
>> launched.
> Hm ... Now I'm not sure drm_dev_enter/exit is actually good enough. I
> guess if you use vmf_insert_pfn within the drm_dev_enter/exit critical
> section, it should be fine. But I think you can also do fault handlers
> that just return the struct page and then let core handle the pte
> wrangling, those would indeed race and we can't have that I think.
For the TTM drivers, having a fault handler that defers the pte
insertion to the core would break also the bo synchronization so I don't
think that will ever happen. To make sure we could perhaps add a return
value warning at the end of the fault handler with a comment explaining
why this is a bad idea.
>
> I think we should try and make sure (as much as possible) that this is
> done all done in helpers and not some open coded stuff in drivers, or
> we'll just get it all wrong in the details.
If doable, considering all the various fault handlers we have in DRM, I
agree.
/Thomas
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list