[RfC PATCH] Add udmabuf misc device

Fri Apr 13 15:37:08 UTC 2018

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:59:32AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/10/2018 08:26 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:37:53AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > On 04/06/2018 09:57 PM, Dongwon Kim wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 03:36:03PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > > > On 04/06/2018 02:57 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > > > >    Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I fail to see any common ground for xen-zcopy and udmabuf ...
> > > > > > > Does the above mean you can assume that xen-zcopy and udmabuf
> > > > > > > can co-exist as two different solutions?
> > > > > > Well, udmabuf route isn't fully clear yet, but yes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > See also gvt (intel vgpu), where the hypervisor interface is abstracted
> > > > > > away into a separate kernel modules even though most of the actual vgpu
> > > > > > emulation code is common.
> > > > > Thank you for your input, I'm just trying to figure out
> > > > > which of the three z-copy solutions intersect and how much
> > > > > > > And what about hyper-dmabuf?
> > > > xen z-copy solution is pretty similar fundamentally to hyper_dmabuf
> > > > in terms of these core sharing feature:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. the sharing process - import prime/dmabuf from the producer -> extract
> > > > underlying pages and get those shared -> return references for shared pages
> > Another thing is danvet was kind of against to the idea of importing existing
> > dmabuf/prime buffer and forward it to the other domain due to synchronization
> > issues. He proposed to make hyper_dmabuf only work as an exporter so that it
> > can have a full control over the buffer. I think we need to talk about this
> > further as well.
> Yes, I saw this. But this limits the use-cases so much.
> For instance, running Android as a Guest (which uses ION to allocate
> buffers) means that finally HW composer will import dma-buf into
> the DRM driver. Then, in case of xen-front for example, it needs to be
> shared with the backend (Host side). Of course, we can change user-space
> to make xen-front allocate the buffers (make it exporter), but what we try
> to avoid is to change user-space which in normal world would have remain
> unchanged otherwise.
> So, I do think we have to support this use-case and just have to understand
> the complexity.

Erm, why do you need importer capability for this use-case?

guest1 -> ION -> xen-front -> hypervisor -> guest 2 -> xen-zcopy exposes
that dma-buf -> import to the real display hw

No where in this chain do you need xen-zcopy to be able to import a
dma-buf (within linux, it needs to import a bunch of pages from the
hypervisor).

Now if your plan is to use xen-zcopy in the guest1 instead of xen-front,
then you indeed need to import. But that imo doesn't make sense:
- xen-front gives you clearly defined flip events you can forward to the
  hypervisor. xen-zcopy would need to add that again. Same for
  hyperdmabuf (and really we're not going to shuffle struct dma_fence over
  the wire in a generic fashion between hypervisor guests).

- xen-front already has the idea of pixel format for the buffer (and any
  other metadata). Again, xen-zcopy and hyperdmabuf lack that, would need
  to add it shoehorned in somehow.

Ofc you won't be able to shovel sound or media stream data over to another
guest like this, but that's what you have xen-v4l and xen-sound or
whatever else for. Trying to make a new uapi, which means userspace must
be changed for all the different use-case, instead of reusing standard
linux driver uapi (which just happens to send the data to another
hypervisor guest instead of real hw) imo just doesn't make much sense.

Also, at least for the gpu subsystem: Any new uapi must have full
userspace available for it, see:

https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/drm-uapi.html#open-source-userspace-requirements

Adding more uapi is definitely the most painful way to fix a use-case.
Personally I'd go as far and also change the xen-zcopy side on the
receiving guest to use some standard linux uapi. E.g. you could write an
output v4l driver to receive the frames from guest1.

> > danvet, can you comment on this topic?
> > 
> > > > 2. the page sharing mechanism - it uses Xen-grant-table.
> > > > 
> > > > And to give you a quick summary of differences as far as I understand
> > > > between two implementations (please correct me if I am wrong, Oleksandr.)
> > > > 
> > > > 1. xen-zcopy is DRM specific - can import only DRM prime buffer
> > > > while hyper_dmabuf can export any dmabuf regardless of originator
> > > Well, this is true. And at the same time this is just a matter
> > > of extending the API: xen-zcopy is a helper driver designed for
> > > xen-front/back use-case, so this is why it only has DRM PRIME API
> > > > 2. xen-zcopy doesn't seem to have dma-buf synchronization between two VMs
> > > > while (as danvet called it as remote dmabuf api sharing) hyper_dmabuf sends
> > > > out synchronization message to the exporting VM for synchronization.
> > > This is true. Again, this is because of the use-cases it covers.
> > > But having synchronization for a generic solution seems to be a good idea.
> > Yeah, understood xen-zcopy works ok with your use case. But I am just curious
> > if it is ok not to have any inter-domain synchronization in this sharing model.
> The synchronization is done with displif protocol [1]
> > The buffer being shared is technically dma-buf and originator needs to be able
> > to keep track of it.
> As I am working in DRM terms the tracking is done by the DRM core
> for me for free. (This might be one of the reasons Daniel sees DRM
> based implementation fit very good from code-reuse POV).

Hm, not sure what tracking you refer to here all ... I got lost in all the
replies while catching up.

> > > > 3. 1-level references - when using grant-table for sharing pages, there will
> > > > be same # of refs (each 8 byte)
> > > To be precise, grant ref is 4 bytes
> > You are right. Thanks for correction.;)
> > 
> > > > as # of shared pages, which is passed to
> > > > the userspace to be shared with importing VM in case of xen-zcopy.
> > > The reason for that is that xen-zcopy is a helper driver, e.g.
> > > the grant references come from the display backend [1], which implements
> > > Xen display protocol [2]. So, effectively the backend extracts references
> > > from frontend's requests and passes those to xen-zcopy as an array
> > > of refs.
> > > >   Compared
> > > > to this, hyper_dmabuf does multiple level addressing to generate only one
> > > > reference id that represents all shared pages.
> > > In the protocol [2] only one reference to the gref directory is passed
> > > between VMs
> > > (and the gref directory is a single-linked list of shared pages containing
> > > all
> > > of the grefs of the buffer).
> > ok, good to know. I will look into its implementation in more details but is
> > this gref directory (chained grefs) something that can be used for any general
> > memory sharing use case or is it jsut for xen-display (in current code base)?
> Not to mislead you: one grant ref is passed via displif protocol,
> but the page it's referencing contains the rest of the grant refs.
> 
> As to if this can be used for any memory: yes. It is the same for
> sndif and displif Xen protocols, but defined twice as strictly speaking
> sndif and displif are two separate protocols.
> 
> While reviewing your RFC v2 one of the comments I had [2] was that if we
> can start from defining such a generic protocol for hyper-dmabuf.
> It can be a header file, which not only has the description part
> (which then become a part of Documentation/...rst file), but also defines
> all the required constants for requests, responses, defines message formats,
> state diagrams etc. all at one place. Of course this protocol must not be
> Xen specific, but be OS/hypervisor agnostic.
> Having that will trigger a new round of discussion, so we have it all
> designed
> and discussed before we start implementing.
> 
> Besides the protocol we have to design UAPI part as well and make sure
> the hyper-dmabuf is not only accessible from user-space, but there will be
> number
> of kernel-space users as well.

Again, why do you want to create new uapi for this? Given the very strict
requirements we have for new uapi (see above link), it's the toughest way
to get any kind of support in.

That's why I had essentially zero big questions for xen-front (except some
implementation improvements, and stuff to make sure xen-front actually
implements the real uapi semantics instead of its own), and why I'm asking
much more questions on this stuff here.

> > > > 4. inter VM messaging (hype_dmabuf only) - hyper_dmabuf has inter-vm msg
> > > > communication defined for dmabuf synchronization and private data (meta
> > > > info that Matt Roper mentioned) exchange.
> > > This is true, xen-zcopy has no means for inter VM sync and meta-data,
> > > simply because it doesn't have any code for inter VM exchange in it,
> > > e.g. the inter VM protocol is handled by the backend [1].
> > > > 5. driver-to-driver notification (hyper_dmabuf only) - importing VM gets
> > > > notified when newdmabuf is exported from other VM - uevent can be optionally
> > > > generated when this happens.
> > > > 
> > > > 6. structure - hyper_dmabuf is targetting to provide a generic solution for
> > > > inter-domain dmabuf sharing for most hypervisors, which is why it has two
> > > > layers as mattrope mentioned, front-end that contains standard API and backend
> > > > that is specific to hypervisor.
> > > Again, xen-zcopy is decoupled from inter VM communication
> > > > > > No idea, didn't look at it in detail.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Looks pretty complex from a distant view.  Maybe because it tries to
> > > > > > build a communication framework using dma-bufs instead of a simple
> > > > > > dma-buf passing mechanism.
> > > > we started with simple dma-buf sharing but realized there are many
> > > > things we need to consider in real use-case, so we added communication
> > > > , notification and dma-buf synchronization then re-structured it to
> > > > front-end and back-end (this made things more compicated..) since Xen
> > > > was not our only target. Also, we thought passing the reference for the
> > > > buffer (hyper_dmabuf_id) is not secure so added uvent mechanism later.
> > > > 
> > > > > Yes, I am looking at it now, trying to figure out the full story
> > > > > and its implementation. BTW, Intel guys were about to share some
> > > > > test application for hyper-dmabuf, maybe I have missed one.
> > > > > It could probably better explain the use-cases and the complexity
> > > > > they have in hyper-dmabuf.
> > > > One example is actually in github. If you want take a look at it, please
> > > > visit:
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/downor/linux_hyper_dmabuf_test/tree/xen/simple_export
> > > Thank you, I'll have a look
> > > > > > Like xen-zcopy it seems to depend on the idea that the hypervisor
> > > > > > manages all memory it is easy for guests to share pages with the help of
> > > > > > the hypervisor.
> > > > > So, for xen-zcopy we were not trying to make it generic,
> > > > > it just solves display (dumb) zero-copying use-cases for Xen.
> > > > > We implemented it as a DRM helper driver because we can't see any
> > > > > other use-cases as of now.
> > > > > For example, we also have Xen para-virtualized sound driver, but
> > > > > its buffer memory usage is not comparable to what display wants
> > > > > and it works somewhat differently (e.g. there is no "frame done"
> > > > > event, so one can't tell when the sound buffer can be "flipped").
> > > > > At the same time, we do not use virtio-gpu, so this could probably
> > > > > be one more candidate for shared dma-bufs some day.
> > > > > >    Which simply isn't the case on kvm.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > hyper-dmabuf and xen-zcopy could maybe share code, or hyper-dmabuf build
> > > > > > on top of xen-zcopy.
> > > > > Hm, I can imagine that: xen-zcopy could be a library code for hyper-dmabuf
> > > > > in terms of implementing all that page sharing fun in multiple directions,
> > > > > e.g. Host->Guest, Guest->Host, Guest<->Guest.
> > > > > But I'll let Matt and Dongwon to comment on that.
> > > > I think we can definitely collaborate. Especially, maybe we are using some
> > > > outdated sharing mechanism/grant-table mechanism in our Xen backend (thanks
> > > > for bringing that up Oleksandr). However, the question is once we collaborate
> > > > somehow, can xen-zcopy's usecase use the standard API that hyper_dmabuf
> > > > provides? I don't think we need different IOCTLs that do the same in the final
> > > > solution.
> > > > 
> > > If you think of xen-zcopy as a library (which implements Xen
> > > grant references mangling) and DRM PRIME wrapper on top of that
> > > library, we can probably define proper API for that library,
> > > so both xen-zcopy and hyper-dmabuf can use it. What is more, I am
> > > about to start upstreaming Xen para-virtualized sound device driver soon,
> > > which also uses similar code and gref passing mechanism [3].
> > > (Actually, I was about to upstream drm/xen-front, drm/xen-zcopy and
> > > snd/xen-front and then propose a Xen helper library for sharing big buffers,
> > > so common code of the above drivers can use the same code w/o code
> > > duplication)
> > I think it is possible to use your functions for memory sharing part in
> > hyper_dmabuf's backend (this 'backend' means the layer that does page sharing
> > and inter-vm communication with xen-specific way.), so why don't we work on
> > "Xen helper library for sharing big buffers" first while we continue our
> > discussion on the common API layer that can cover any dmabuf sharing cases.
> > 
> Well, I would love we reuse the code that I have, but I also
> understand that it was limited by my use-cases. So, I do not
> insist we have to ;)
> If we start designing and discussing hyper-dmabuf protocol we of course
> can work on this helper library in parallel.

Imo code reuse is overrated. Adding new uapi is what freaks me out here
:-)

If we end up with duplicated implementations, even in upstream, meh, not
great, but also ok. New uapi, and in a similar way, new hypervisor api
like the dma-buf forwarding that hyperdmabuf does is the kind of thing
that will lock us in for 10+ years (if we make a mistake).

> > > Thank you,
> > > Oleksandr
> > > 
> > > P.S. All, is it a good idea to move this out of udmabuf thread into a
> > > dedicated one?
> > Either way is fine with me.
> So, if you can start designing the protocol we may have a dedicated mail
> thread for that. I will try to help with the protocol as much as I can

Please don't start with the protocol. Instead start with the concrete
use-cases, and then figure out why exactly you need new uapi. Once we have
that answered, we can start thinking about fleshing out the details.

Cheers, Daniel

> 
> > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > >    Gerd
> > > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > Oleksandr
> > > > > 
> > > > > P.S. Sorry for making your original mail thread to discuss things much
> > > > > broader than your RFC...
> > > > > 
> > > [1] https://github.com/xen-troops/displ_be
> > > [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc7/source/include/xen/interface/io/displif.h#L484
> > > [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc7/source/include/xen/interface/io/sndif.h
> > > 
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.16-rc7/source/include/xen/interface/io/displif.h
> [2]
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-04/msg00685.html
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch