[PATCH 0/1][RFC] drm/ttm Improved io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free_calling

Thomas Hellstrom thellstrom at vmware.com
Thu Nov 11 23:18:33 PST 2010

On 11/11/2010 11:46 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 17:50 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 11/11/2010 04:27 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Thomas Hellstrom<thellstrom at vmware.com>   wrote:
>>>> The following patch is really intended for the next merge window.
>>>> RFC:
>>>> 1) Are there any implementations of driver::io_mem_reserve today that can't use
>>>> the fastpath?
>>>> 2) Can we put an atomic requirement on driver::io_mem_reserve /
>>>> driver::io_mem_free?
>>>> The patch improves on the io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free calling sequences by
>>>> introducing a fastpath and an optional eviction mechanism.
>>>> The fastpath is enabled by default and is switched off by the driver setting
>>>> struct ttm_mem_type_manager::io_reserve_fastpath to false on mem type init.
>>>> With the fastpath no locking occurs, and io_mem_free is never called.
>>>> I'm not sure if there are any implementations today that could not use the
>>>> fastpath.
>>>> As mentioned in the patch, if the fastpath is disabled, calls to
>>>> io_mem_reserve and io_mem_free are exactly balanced, and refcounted within
>>>> struct ttm_mem_reg so that io_mem_reserve should never be called recursively
>>>> for the same struct ttm_mem_reg.
>>>> Locking is required to make sure that ptes are never present on when the
>>>> underlying memory region is not reserved. Currently I'm using
>>>> man::io_reserve_mutex for this. Can we use a spinlock? That would require
>>>> io_mem_reserve and io_mem_free to be atomic.
>>>> Optionally, there is an eviction mechanism that is activated by setting
>>>> struct ttm_mem_type_manager::use_io_reserve_lru to true when initialized.
>>>> If the eviction mechanism is activated, and io_mem_reserve returns -EAGAIN,
>>>> it will attempt to kill user-space mappings to free up reserved regions.
>>>> Kernel mappings (ttm_bo_kmap) are not affected.
>>> Radeon can use fast path, i think nouveau can too. I am not sure we
>>> can consider io_mem_reserve as atomic. Use case i fear is GPU with
>>> remappable apperture i don't know what kind of code we would need for
>>> that and it might sleep. Thought my first guess is that it likely can
>>> be done atomicly.
>> In that case, I think I will change it to a spinlock, with a code
>> comment that it can be changed to a mutex later if it turns out to be
>> very hard / impossible to implement atomic operations. Another possible
>> concern is the execution of umap_mapping_range() that may in some cases
>> be long. Perhaps too long to use a spinlock.
> I'd rather keep the mutex personally, the code I have in development
> uses mutexes itself beyond the io_mem_reserve/io_mem_free calls.  An
> earlier revision used spinlocks, but it wasn't very nice.
> Ben.
Note that any per-mem-type shared objects accessed by io_mem_reserve / 
io_mem_free don't need any further protection beyond the lock we're 
discussing. For the same mem_type, io_mem_reserve / io_mem_free will be 
completely serialized with this patch.

Anyway, let's keep the mutex.


More information about the dri-devel mailing list