[PATCH 1/8] drm: execution context for GEM buffers v2

[Christian König]

Am 09.06.22 um 02:05 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
> [SNIP]
>> + *
>> + *        ret = drm_exec_lock(&exec, boB, 1);
>
> Where is drm_exec_lock? It's not in this patch.

I've renamed this function to drm_exec_prepare_obj() but forgot to 
update the documentation. Going to fix this, thanks.

>
>
>> + * drm_exec_continue_on_contention(&exec);
>> + *        if (ret)
>> + *            goto error;
>> + *    }
>> + *
>> + *    drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(&exec, index, obj) {
>> + *        dma_resv_add_fence(obj->resv, fence, DMA_RESV_USAGE_READ);
>> + *        ...
>> + *    }
>> + *    drm_exec_fini(&exec);
>> + *
>> + * See struct dma_exec for more details.
>> + */
>> +
>> +/* Dummy value used to initially enter the retry loop */
>> +#define DRM_EXEC_DUMMY (void*)~0
>> +
>> +/* Initialize the drm_exec_objects container */
>> +static void drm_exec_objects_init(struct drm_exec_objects *container)
>> +{
>> +    container->objects = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Should this be kvmalloc? You're using kvrealloc and kvfree elsewhere.

The initial number of objects tracked should be small enough so that we 
can use kmalloc() directly.

> [SNIP]
>>
>> +/**
>> + * drm_exec_prepare_obj - prepare a GEM object for use
>> + * @exec: the drm_exec object with the state
>> + * @obj: the GEM object to prepare
>> + * @num_fences: how many fences to reserve
>> + *
>> + * Prepare a GEM object for use by locking it and reserving fence 
>> slots. All
>> + * succesfully locked objects are put into the locked container. 
>> Duplicates
>> + * detected as well and automatically moved into the duplicates 
>> container.
>> + *
>> + * Returns: -EDEADLK if a contention is detected, -ENOMEM when memory
>> + * allocation failed and zero for success.
>> + */
>> +int drm_exec_prepare_obj(struct drm_exec *exec, struct 
>> drm_gem_object *obj,
>> +             unsigned int num_fences)
>> +{
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    ret = drm_exec_lock_contended(exec);
>
> If this succeeds, it won't reserve any fence slots for object. Is that 
> a problem?

No, the contended object should be re-presented later on and then we 
allocate the fence slots.

>>
>> +    if (unlikely(ret == -EALREADY)) {
>> +        struct drm_exec_objects *container = &exec->duplicates;
>> +
>> +        /*
>> +         * If this is the first locked GEM object it was most likely
>> +         * just contended. So don't add it to the duplicates, just
>> +         * reserve the fence slots.
>
> I don't understand this. Seems a bit arbitrary. Is it even legal to 
> try to add the same object twice? I thought duplicates was for 
> different objects that share the same reservation, not actually the 
> same object on the same list twice.

Yes, it's legal to try the same object twice. That can easily happen 
when userspace specifies the same handle twice for a submission.

The other possibility is that we had a contention, backed off and then 
locked the contention first and then re-tried everything else once more.

> Maybe you meant to compare with 
> exec->locked.objects[exec->locked.num_objects-1], assuming that 
> drm_exec_lock_contended just succeeded locking a previously contended 
> object, and the caller retried locking that same object again?

Yes, that's pretty much the idea. But then exec->locked.num_objects is 
just 1 so that's equal to checking exec->locked.num_objects[0].

On the other hand we would also catch cases where we lock the same 
object multiple times directly behind each other. Need to think about 
that a bit.

>> +         */
>> +        if (exec->locked.num_objects && exec->locked.objects[0] == obj)
>> +            container = NULL;
>> +
>> +        ret = drm_exec_obj_locked(container, obj, num_fences);
>> +        if (ret)
>> +            return ret;
>> +
>> +    } else if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    } else {
>> +        ret = drm_exec_obj_locked(&exec->locked, obj, num_fences);
>> +        if (ret)
>> +            goto error_unlock;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    drm_gem_object_get(obj);
>
> The container already gets a reference to obj. What is this extra 
> reference for? And where does it get dropped?

Need to double check this, might be that it's just a leftover.

Thanks,
Christian.

>
> Regards,
>   Felix