[PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gem: Migrate to system at dma-buf attach time (v5)
Daniel Vetter
daniel at ffwll.ch
Thu Jul 15 05:57:27 UTC 2021
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:01 PM Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:23 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 04:06:13PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 15:44, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:12:34PM -0500, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > > > > From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Until we support p2p dma or as a complement to that, migrate data
> > > > > to system memory at dma-buf attach time if possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > v2:
> > > > > - Rebase on dynamic exporter. Update the igt_dmabuf_import_same_driver
> > > > > selftest to migrate if we are LMEM capable.
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > - Migrate also in the pin() callback.
> > > > > v4:
> > > > > - Migrate in attach
> > > > > v5: (jason)
> > > > > - Lock around the migration
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl at intel.com>
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > .../drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_dmabuf.c | 4 ++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > index 9a655f69a0671..3163f00554476 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > @@ -170,8 +170,31 @@ static int i915_gem_dmabuf_attach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> > > > > struct dma_buf_attachment *attach)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = dma_buf_to_obj(dmabuf);
> > > > > + struct i915_gem_ww_ctx ww;
> > > > > + int err;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for_i915_gem_ww(&ww, err, true) {
> > > > > + err = i915_gem_object_lock(obj, &ww);
> > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!i915_gem_object_can_migrate(obj, INTEL_REGION_SMEM)) {
> > > > > + err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + err = i915_gem_object_migrate(obj, &ww, INTEL_REGION_SMEM);
> > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > >
> > > > > - return i915_gem_object_pin_pages_unlocked(obj);
> > > > > + err = i915_gem_object_wait_migration(obj, 0);
> > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + err = i915_gem_object_pin_pages(obj);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return err;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static void i915_gem_dmabuf_detach(struct dma_buf *dmabuf,
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_dmabuf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > index 3dc0f8b3cdab0..4f7e77b1c0152 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > > > > @@ -106,7 +106,9 @@ static int igt_dmabuf_import_same_driver(void *arg)
> > > > > int err;
> > > > >
> > > > > force_different_devices = true;
> > > > > - obj = i915_gem_object_create_shmem(i915, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > + obj = i915_gem_object_create_lmem(i915, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering (and couldn't answer) whether this creates an lmem+smem
> > > > buffer, since if we create an lmem-only buffer then the migration above
> > > > should fail.
> > >
> > > It's lmem-only, but it's also a kernel internal object, so the
> > > migration path will still happily migrate it if asked. On the other
> > > hand if it's a userspace object then we always have to respect the
> > > placements.
> > >
> > > I think for now the only usecase for that is in the selftests.
> >
> > Yeah I've read the kerneldoc, it's all nicely documented but feels a bit
> > dangerous. What I proposed on irc:
> > - i915_gem_object_migrate does the placement check, i.e. as strict as
> > can_migrate.
> > - A new __i915_gem_object_migrate is for selftest that do special stuff.
>
> I just sent out a patch which does this except we don't actually need
> the __ version because there are no self-tests that want to do a
> dangerous migrate. We could add such a helper later if we needed.
>
> > - In the import selftest we check that lmem-only fails (because we can't
> > pin it into smem) for a non-dynamic importer, but lmem+smem works and
> > gets migrated.
>
> I think we maybe want multiple things here? The test we have right
> now is useful because, by creating an internal LMEM buffer we ensure
> that the migration actually happens. If we create LMEM+SMEM, then
> it's possible it'll start off in SMEM and the migration would be a
> no-op. Not sure how likely that is in reality in a self-test
> environment, though.
lmem+smem is supposed to allocate in lmem first (I guess we could
verify this by peeking behind the curtain), so it should migrate.
-Daniel
>
> --Jason
>
> > - Once we have dynamic dma-buf for p2p pci, then we'll have another
> > selftest which checks that things work for lmem only if and only if the
> > importer is dynamic and has set the allow_p2p flag.
> >
> > We could also add the can_migrate check everywhere (including
> > dma_buf->attach), but that feels like the less save api.
> > -Daniel
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Which I'm also not sure we have a testcase for that testcase either ...
> > > >
> > > > I tried to read some code here, but got a bit lost. Ideas?
> > > > -Daniel
> > > >
> > > > > + if (IS_ERR(obj))
> > > > > + obj = i915_gem_object_create_shmem(i915, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > if (IS_ERR(obj))
> > > > > goto out_ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.31.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list