[PATCH 4/7] drm/radeon: Pin buffers while they are vmap'ed
Thomas Zimmermann
tzimmermann at suse.de
Tue Nov 24 12:15:04 UTC 2020
Hi
Am 24.11.20 um 12:54 schrieb Christian König:
> Am 24.11.20 um 12:44 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 24.11.20 um 12:30 schrieb Christian König:
>>> Am 24.11.20 um 10:16 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>> Hi Christian
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.11.20 um 12:28 schrieb Christian König:
>>>>> Am 13.11.20 um 08:59 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>>>> Hi Christian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 12.11.20 um 18:16 schrieb Christian König:
>>>>>>> Am 12.11.20 um 14:21 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:
>>>>>>>> In order to avoid eviction of vmap'ed buffers, pin them in their
>>>>>>>> GEM
>>>>>>>> object's vmap implementation. Unpin them in the vunmap
>>>>>>>> implementation.
>>>>>>>> This is needed to make generic fbdev support work reliably.
>>>>>>>> Without,
>>>>>>>> the buffer object could be evicted while fbdev flushed its
>>>>>>>> shadow buffer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In difference to the PRIME pin/unpin functions, the vmap code
>>>>>>>> does not
>>>>>>>> modify the BOs prime_shared_count, so a vmap-pinned BO does not
>>>>>>>> count as
>>>>>>>> shared.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual pin location is not important as the vmap call returns
>>>>>>>> information on how to access the buffer. Callers that require a
>>>>>>>> specific location should explicitly pin the BO before vmapping it.
>>>>>>> Well is the buffer supposed to be scanned out?
>>>>>> No, not by the fbdev helper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok in this case that should work.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If yes then the pin location is actually rather important since the
>>>>>>> hardware can only scan out from VRAM.
>>>>>> For relocatable BOs, fbdev uses a shadow buffer that makes all any
>>>>>> relocation transparent to userspace. It flushes the shadow fb into
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> BO's memory if there are updates. The code is in
>>>>>> drm_fb_helper_dirty_work(). [1] During the flush operation, the vmap
>>>>>> call now pins the BO to wherever it is. The actual location does not
>>>>>> matter. It's vunmap'ed immediately afterwards.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is what happens when it is prepared for scanout, but
>>>>> can't be moved to VRAM because it is vmapped?
>>>>>
>>>>> When the shadow is never scanned out that isn't a problem, but we
>>>>> need to keep that in mind.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like ask for your suggestions before sending an update for this
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>> After the discussion about locking in fbdev, [1] I intended to
>>>> replace the pin call with code that acquires the reservation lock.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me as well.
>>>
>>>> First I wanted to put this into drm_gem_ttm_vmap/vunmap(), but then
>>>> wondered why ttm_bo_vmap() doe not acquire the lock internally? I'd
>>>> expect that vmap/vunmap are close together and do not overlap for
>>>> the same BO.
>>>
>>> We have use cases like the following during command submission:
>>>
>>> 1. lock
>>> 2. map
>>> 3. copy parts of the BO content somewhere else or patch it with
>>> additional information
>>> 4. unmap
>>> 5. submit BO to the hardware
>>> 6. add hardware fence to the BO to make sure it doesn't move
>>> 7. unlock
>>>
>>> That use case won't be possible with vmap/vunmap if we move the
>>> lock/unlock into it and I hope to replace the kmap/kunmap functions
>>> with them in the near term.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, acquiring the reservation lock would require another
>>>> ref-counting variable or per-driver code.
>>>
>>> Hui, why that? Just put this into drm_gem_ttm_vmap/vunmap() helper as
>>> you initially planned.
>>
>> Given your example above, step one would acquire the lock, and step
>> two would also acquire the lock as part of the vmap implementation.
>> Wouldn't this fail (At least during unmap or unlock steps) ?
>
> Oh, so you want to nest them? No, that is a rather bad no-go.
I don't want to nest/overlap them. My question was whether that would be
required. Apparently not.
While the console's BO is being set for scanout, it's protected from
movement via the pin/unpin implementation, right? The driver does not
acquire the resv lock for longer periods. I'm asking because this would
prevent any console-buffer updates while the console is being displayed.
>
> You need to make sure that the lock is only taken from the FB path which
> wants to vmap the object.
>
> Why don't you lock the GEM object from the caller in the generic FB
> implementation?
With the current blitter code, it breaks abstraction. if vmap/vunmap
hold the lock implicitly, things would be easier.
Sorry for the noob questions. I'm still trying to understand the
implications of acquiring these locks.
Best regards
Thomas
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Thomas
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/401088/?series=83918&rev=1
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For dma-buf sharing, the regular procedure of pin + vmap still apply.
>>>>>> This should always move the BO into GTT-managed memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux.git%2Ftree%2Fdrivers%2Fgpu%2Fdrm%2Fdrm_fb_helper.c%23n432&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C31b890664ca7429fc45808d887aa0842%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637408511650629569%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=RLauuAuXkcl0rXwWWJ%2FrKP%2BsCr2wAzU1ejGV1bnQ80w%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c | 51
>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>>>>>>>> index d2876ce3bc9e..eaf7fc9a7b07 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_gem.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -226,6 +226,53 @@ static int radeon_gem_handle_lockup(struct
>>>>>>>> radeon_device *rdev, int r)
>>>>>>>> return r;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> +static int radeon_gem_object_vmap(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>>>>>>>> struct dma_buf_map *map)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + static const uint32_t any_domain = RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM |
>>>>>>>> + RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT |
>>>>>>>> + RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + struct radeon_bo *bo = gem_to_radeon_bo(obj);
>>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + ret = radeon_bo_reserve(bo, false);
>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + /* pin buffer at its current location */
>>>>>>>> + ret = radeon_bo_pin(bo, any_domain, NULL);
>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>>>> + goto err_radeon_bo_unreserve;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + ret = drm_gem_ttm_vmap(obj, map);
>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>>>> + goto err_radeon_bo_unpin;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + radeon_bo_unreserve(bo);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +err_radeon_bo_unpin:
>>>>>>>> + radeon_bo_unpin(bo);
>>>>>>>> +err_radeon_bo_unreserve:
>>>>>>>> + radeon_bo_unreserve(bo);
>>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +static void radeon_gem_object_vunmap(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>>>>>>>> struct dma_buf_map *map)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + struct radeon_bo *bo = gem_to_radeon_bo(obj);
>>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + ret = radeon_bo_reserve(bo, false);
>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + drm_gem_ttm_vunmap(obj, map);
>>>>>>>> + radeon_bo_unpin(bo);
>>>>>>>> + radeon_bo_unreserve(bo);
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs
>>>>>>>> radeon_gem_object_funcs = {
>>>>>>>> .free = radeon_gem_object_free,
>>>>>>>> .open = radeon_gem_object_open,
>>>>>>>> @@ -234,8 +281,8 @@ static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs
>>>>>>>> radeon_gem_object_funcs = {
>>>>>>>> .pin = radeon_gem_prime_pin,
>>>>>>>> .unpin = radeon_gem_prime_unpin,
>>>>>>>> .get_sg_table = radeon_gem_prime_get_sg_table,
>>>>>>>> - .vmap = drm_gem_ttm_vmap,
>>>>>>>> - .vunmap = drm_gem_ttm_vunmap,
>>>>>>>> + .vmap = radeon_gem_object_vmap,
>>>>>>>> + .vunmap = radeon_gem_object_vunmap,
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>>>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdri-devel&data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C31b890664ca7429fc45808d887aa0842%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637408511650629569%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=h1U9Po83K7webxsiKpn3ZGFz9Fcg6SRkxtrXWZ1%2B%2FEc%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x680DC11D530B7A23.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 7435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20201124/0cd67039/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20201124/0cd67039/attachment.sig>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list