[PATCH v3 05/12] drm/ttm: Expose ttm_tt_unpopulate for driver use

[Christian König]

Am 24.11.20 um 17:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>
> On 11/24/20 2:41 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 23.11.20 um 22:08 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>
>>> On 11/23/20 3:41 PM, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 23.11.20 um 21:38 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/23/20 3:20 PM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> Am 23.11.20 um 21:05 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/25/20 5:42 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 21.11.20 um 06:21 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>>>>>>>>> It's needed to drop iommu backed pages on device unplug
>>>>>>>>> before device's IOMMU group is released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be cleaner if we could do the whole handling in TTM. I 
>>>>>>>> also need to double check what you are doing with this function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Check patch "drm/amdgpu: Register IOMMU topology notifier per 
>>>>>>> device." to see
>>>>>>> how i use it. I don't see why this should go into TTM mid-layer 
>>>>>>> - the stuff I do inside
>>>>>>> is vendor specific and also I don't think TTM is explicitly 
>>>>>>> aware of IOMMU ?
>>>>>>> Do you mean you prefer the IOMMU notifier to be registered from 
>>>>>>> within TTM
>>>>>>> and then use a hook to call into vendor specific handler ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that is really vendor specific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I meant is to have a function like 
>>>>>> ttm_resource_manager_evict_all() which you only need to call and 
>>>>>> all tt objects are unpopulated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So instead of this BO list i create and later iterate in amdgpu 
>>>>> from the IOMMU patch you just want to do it within
>>>>> TTM with a single function ? Makes much more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, exactly.
>>>>
>>>> The list_empty() checks we have in TTM for the LRU are actually not 
>>>> the best idea, we should now check the pin_count instead. This way 
>>>> we could also have a list of the pinned BOs in TTM.
>>>
>>>
>>> So from my IOMMU topology handler I will iterate the TTM LRU for the 
>>> unpinned BOs and this new function for the pinned ones  ?
>>> It's probably a good idea to combine both iterations into this new 
>>> function to cover all the BOs allocated on the device.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I had in my mind as well.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Have you thought about what happens when we unpopulate a BO 
>>>> while we still try to use a kernel mapping for it? That could have 
>>>> unforeseen consequences.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you asking what happens to kmap or vmap style mapped CPU 
>>> accesses once we drop all the DMA backing pages for a particular BO 
>>> ? Because for user mappings
>>> (mmap) we took care of this with dummy page reroute but indeed 
>>> nothing was done for in kernel CPU mappings.
>>
>> Yes exactly that.
>>
>> In other words what happens if we free the ring buffer while the 
>> kernel still writes to it?
>>
>> Christian.
>
>
> While we can't control user application accesses to the mapped buffers 
> explicitly and hence we use page fault rerouting
> I am thinking that in this  case we may be able to sprinkle 
> drm_dev_enter/exit in any such sensitive place were we might
> CPU access a DMA buffer from the kernel ?

Yes, I fear we are going to need that.

> Things like CPU page table updates, ring buffer accesses and FW memcpy 
> ? Is there other places ?

Puh, good question. I have no idea.

> Another point is that at this point the driver shouldn't access any 
> such buffers as we are at the process finishing the device.
> AFAIK there is no page fault mechanism for kernel mappings so I don't 
> think there is anything else to do ?

Well there is a page fault handler for kernel mappings, but that one 
just prints the stack trace into the system log and calls BUG(); :)

Long story short we need to avoid any access to released pages after 
unplug. No matter if it's from the kernel or userspace.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> Andrey