[PATCH 3/3] drm: omapdrm: Do no allocate non-scanout GEMs through DMM/TILER

[Ivaylo Dimitrov]

Hi,


On 29.08.22 г. 5:51 ч., Yongqin Liu wrote:
> Hi, Ivaylo
> 
> Sorry for the late response, and Thanks very much for the detailed explanations!
> 
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 18:23, Ivaylo Dimitrov
> <ivo.g.dimitrov.75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 17.08.22 г. 7:52 ч., Yongqin Liu wrote:
>>> Hi, Ivaylo
>>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 at 14:23, Ivaylo Dimitrov
>>> <ivo.g.dimitrov.75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Liu,
>>>>
>>>> On 14.08.22 г. 17:27 ч., Yongqin Liu wrote:
>>>>> Hi, IvayIo
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks very much for the reply!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 at 14:58, Ivaylo Dimitrov
>>>>> <ivo.g.dimitrov.75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Liu,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12.08.22 г. 7:35 ч., Yongqin Liu wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Ivaylo, Tomi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have one X15 Android AOSP master build, it could not have the home
>>>>>>> screen displayed
>>>>>>> on the hdmi monitor connected with this change, with the following
>>>>>>> message printed on the serial console
>>>>>>>         [  607.404205] omapdrm omapdrm.0: Failed to setup plane plane-0
>>>>>>>         [  607.410522] omapdrm omapdrm.0: Failed to setup plane plane-1
>>>>>>>         [  607.416381] omapdrm omapdrm.0: Failed to setup plane plane-2
>>>>>>>         [  607.422088] omapdrm omapdrm.0: Failed to setup plane plane-3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        # for details, please check the link here: http://ix.io/47m1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will work with home screen displayed on the hdmi monitor if this
>>>>>>> change is reverted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the broken problem you talked about here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And could you please give some suggestions on how to have the x15
>>>>>>> Android build work with this change?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make sure scanout (i.e. those to be displayed) buffers are actually
>>>>>> allocated as such - OMAP_BO_SCANOUT flag must be set when calling
>>>>>> omap_bo_new().
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not familiar with this area, I am sorry if I asked quite silly questions:(
>>>>> I googled omap_bo_new, and found it's a function of libdrm here[1], is
>>>>> it what you meant here?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, calling this function from userspace ends in kernel code the
>>>> $subject patch is part of.
>>>>
>>>>> If it's the omap_bo_new that we should pass OMAP_BO_SCANOUT when it is called,
>>>>> then is it the correct way to update omap_bo_new to add the OMAP_BO_SCANOUT flag
>>>>> before it calls omap_bo_new_impl?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> omap_bo_new() is fine and does not need any updates/fixes, it is the
>>>> code that uses it (whoever it is, I am not familiar with the userspace
>>>> you are using) that shall pass correct flags (third parameter) when
>>>> calling it.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I do not get the point here.
>>> Like you said, the code that calls omap_bo_new needs to pass OMAP_BO_SCANOUT,
>>> then IMO omap_bo_new should be the best place to add the OMAP_BO_SCANOUT flag,
>>> (like via flags = flags | OMAP_BO_SCANOUT), that could help avoid
>>> missing the flag by some code,
>>> and also avoids hacks/changes on the possible blob binaries.
>>>
>>> Do I misunderstand somewhere?
>>> Or is there some case that OMAP_BO_SCANOUT shouldn't be passed when
>>> omap_bo_new is called?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. You need to pass OMAP_BO_SCANOUT only when you want your
>> buffers to be 'scanout' buffers(i.e. buffers that can be displayed on
>> screen), which is not always the case - there is no need offscreen
>> buffers or pixmaps to be scanout capable, for example. There are more
>> cases like that.
>>
>> The problem is that scanout buffer on OMAP4 allocate additional
>> resources in DMM/TILER (a piece of hardware) and those resources are
>> limited. Not only that, but DMM/TILER memory space eventually gets
>> fragmented over time (if you have lots of allocataoins/deallocations)
>> and you will start getting ENOMEM (or similar) errors.
>>
>> Ofc, in your particular use case you may never hit such issues.
> 
> Thanks, I understand the cases now.
> 
> 
>>>> BTW you shall really find who and how uses OMAP BO API, in theory it
>>>> might use ioctls directly and not call omap_bo_xxx functions.
>>>
>>> Do you mean the DRM_OMAP_GEM_NEW ioctl api?
>>> There is no place in the AOSP tree to call that except the
>>> omap_bo_new_impl function,
>>> which is called by the omap_bo_new and omap_bo_new_tiled functions.
>>> The omap_bo_new should not be called with the OMAP_BO_TILED flag,
>>> while the omap_bo_new_tiled should be called with the OMAP_BO_TILED flag
>>>
>>> Regarding to the omap_bo_new function, there are 2 places call it in
>>> the AOSP tree:
>>> #1 ./external/libkmsxx/kms++/src/omap/omapframebuffer.cpp
>>> #2 ./device/ti/beagle_x15/gpu/gralloc.am57x.so
>>>
>>> #1 seems not used in AOSP yet, and #2 is one blob binary we do not
>>> have the source for.
>>>
>>
>> I would bet on gralloc.am57x.so.
> yeah, that's my guess as well.
> 
>>>> strace
>>>> would be your friend there. or gdb, or whatever tools are used on
>>>> android. Or put some printfs() in omap_bo_new() that output the PID of
>>>> the calling process, etc.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for these great suggestions! Will use them when possible.
>>>
>>>>> And another question is that, since the userspace(libdrm) will be used
>>>>> to work with different kernel versions,
>>>>> like the old 4.14, 4.19, etc, do you think there will be problem to
>>>>> pass  OMAP_BO_SCANOUT
>>>>> from the userspace side with the old kernels(which does not have this change)?
>>>>> does this change need to be backported to the old kernel versions?
>>>>
>>>> There should not be any issue. The changes could be backported if one
>>>> hits the issues this $series is fixing, but there is no need.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the confirmation!
>>> I just boot-tested with adding OMAP_BO_SCANOUT in the omap_bo_new function,
>>> and it worked with the current 4.14, 4.19, and the mainline kernels.
>>> # via adding line "flags = flags | OMAP_BO_SCANOUT" in the omap_bo_new function.
>>>
>>
>> sure, the point is that with this change *every* BO will be allocated as
>> scanout BO, potentially leading to the above explained issues.
> 
> get it.
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> And the last question is that, omap_bo_new might be called by some
>>>>> property binaries what not everyone
>>>>> could get the source to update, for such case what's your suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hard to say without knowing what that library would be.
>>>>
>>>> When I hit issues with closed blobs, sometimes I reverse-engineer them
>>>> to fix the issue, example:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/maemo-leste/sgx-ddk-um/tree/master/dbm
>>>>
>>>> This is REed libdbm from sgx-ddk-um 1.17.4948957, that is responsible
>>>> for allocating BOs (what omap_bo_new() does) but it uses DUMB buffers
>>>> API, instead of OMAP BO API.
>>>>
>>>> I guess you are using some older version of sgx-ddk-um, so you may fix
>>>> in similar way. Or binary patch.
>>>
>>> The blob binary that calls omap_bo_new is the gralloc.am57x.so here[2]:
>>> any suggestions with it?
>>> # sorry, I am not able to find out how you did the reverse-engineer
>>> work# with the dbm repository shared here,
>>> # not sure if you could give some tutorial steps for the similar
>>> reverse-engineer# work with gralloc.am57x.so
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but it is like if you ask me to provide you with a tutorial on
>> how to do brain surgery :)
>>
>>> [2]: https://android.googlesource.com/device/ti/beagle-x15/+/refs/heads/master/gpu/gralloc.am57x.so
>>>
>>
>> I investigated this a bit and it seems it calls omap_bo_new() in a
>> wrapper function like:
>>
>> bo = omap_bo_new(dev, -page_size & (size + page_size - 1), ((param5 &
>> 0x800000) != 0) | OMAP_BO_WC | OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG);
>>
>> Didn't investigate further what param5 is, but it controls if
>> OMAP_BO_SCANOUT is passed to omap_bo_new or not.
>>
>> However, this library was not made with upstream kernel in mind, as
>> AFAIK OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG never made it upstream:
>>
>> https://yhbt.net/lore/all/2580272.MiZDHyRxZo@avalon/T/
>>
>> @Tomi - any comment?
>>
>> So, you have couple of options:
>>
>> 1. Ask TI for upstream-compatible library.
> check is in progress, but it would take quite a long time I guess
>> 2. Try to push OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG patch upstream.
> hmm, sounds like one impossible thing...
>> 3. Modify omap_bo_new() to something like:
>> .
>> #define OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG      0x00000008      /* only use contiguous dma mem */
>> .
>> if (flags & OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG)
>>     flags |= OMAP_BO_SCANOUT;
>> .
>> This will not achieve exactly what OMAP_BO_MEM_CONTIG is supposed to do,
>> but should make it work, at least.
> 
> This looks like the only doable thing at the moment, maybe one change
> needs to be submitted to the mesa/drm repository.
> I can submit a request on your #3 change to the mesa/drm repository
> for discussion after some check if you do not mind.
> 

I doubt mesa/drm will accept such hack, I think you will need to support 
your drm clone (with the above fix) until TI fixes the closed library.

Regards,
Ivo

> Thanks,
> Yongqin Liu
> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 23:29, Ivaylo Dimitrov
>>>>>>> <ivo.g.dimitrov.75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 17.02.22 г. 14:46 ч., Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 19/01/2022 12:23, Ivaylo Dimitrov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On devices with DMM, all allocations are done through either DMM or
>>>>>>>>>> TILER.
>>>>>>>>>> DMM/TILER being a limited resource means that such allocations will start
>>>>>>>>>> to fail before actual free memory is exhausted. What is even worse is
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> with time DMM/TILER space gets fragmented to the point that even if we
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> enough free DMM/TILER space and free memory, allocation fails because
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> is no big enough free block in DMM/TILER space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such failures can be easily observed with OMAP xorg DDX, for example -
>>>>>>>>>> starting few GUI applications (so buffers for their windows are
>>>>>>>>>> allocated)
>>>>>>>>>> and then rotating landscape<->portrait while closing and opening new
>>>>>>>>>> windows soon results in allocation failures.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fix that by mapping buffers through DMM/TILER only when really needed,
>>>>>>>>>> like, for scanout buffers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't this break users that get a buffer from omapdrm and expect it to
>>>>>>>>> be contiguous?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you mean dumb buffer, then no, this does not break users as dumb
>>>>>>>> buffers are allocated as scanout:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/omap_gem.c#L603
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you mean omap_bo allocated buffers, then if users want
>>>>>>>> linear(scanout) buffer, then they request it explicitly by passing
>>>>>>>> OMAP_BO_SCANOUT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ivo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>