[PATCH v2 9/9] drm/i915: Use kmap_local_page() in gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 14/04/2023 11:45, Zhao Liu wrote:
> Hi Tvrtko,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:45:13PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> However I am unsure if disabling pagefaulting is needed or not. Thomas,
>>>> Matt, being the last to touch this area, perhaps you could have a look?
>>>> Because I notice we have a fallback iomap path which still uses
>>>> io_mapping_map_atomic_wc. So if kmap_atomic to kmap_local conversion is
>>>> safe, does the iomap side also needs converting to
>>>> io_mapping_map_local_wc? Or they have separate requirements?
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the requirements for io_mapping_map_local_wc() are the same as for
>>> kmap_local_page(): the kernel virtual address is _only_ valid in the caller
>>> context, and map/unmap nesting must be done in stack-based ordering (LIFO).
>>>
>>> I think a follow up patch could safely switch to io_mapping_map_local_wc() /
>>> io_mapping_unmap_local_wc since the address is local to context.
>>>
>>> However, not being an expert, reading your note now I suspect that I'm missing
>>> something. Can I ask why you think that page-faults disabling might be
>>> necessary?
>>
>> I am not saying it is, was just unsure and wanted some people who worked on this code most recently to take a look and confirm.
>>
>> I guess it will work since the copying is done like this anyway:
>>
>> 		/*
>> 		 * This is the fast path and we cannot handle a pagefault
>> 		 * whilst holding the struct mutex lest the user pass in the
>> 		 * relocations contained within a mmaped bo. For in such a case
>> 		 * we, the page fault handler would call i915_gem_fault() and
>> 		 * we would try to acquire the struct mutex again. Obviously
>> 		 * this is bad and so lockdep complains vehemently.
>> 		 */
>> 		pagefault_disable();
>> 		copied = __copy_from_user_inatomic(r, urelocs, count * sizeof(r[0]));
>> 		pagefault_enable();
>> 		if (unlikely(copied)) {
>> 			remain = -EFAULT;
>> 			goto out;
>> 		}
>>
>> Comment is a bit outdated since we don't use that global "struct mutex" any longer, but in any case, if there is a page fault on the mapping where we need to recurse into i915 again to satisfy if, we seem to have code already to handle it. So kmap_local conversion I *think* can't regress anything.
> 
> Thanks for your explanation!
> 
>>
>> Patch to convert the io_mapping_map_atomic_wc can indeed come later.
> 
> Okay, I will also look at this.
> 
>>
>> In terms of logistics - if we landed this series to out branch it would be queued only for 6.5. Would that work for you?
> 
> Yeah, it's ok for me. But could I ask, did I miss the 6.4 merge time?

Yes, but just because we failed to review and merge in time, not because 
you did not provide patches in time.

Regards,

Tvrtko