[PATCH drm-next v5 03/14] drm: manager to keep track of GPUs VA mappings

[Danilo Krummrich]

On 6/22/23 15:54, Christian König wrote:
> Am 20.06.23 um 14:23 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>> On 6/20/23 08:45, Christian König wrote:
>>> Hi Danilo,
>>>
>>> sorry for the delayed reply. I've trying to dig myself out of a hole 
>>> at the moment.
>>
>> No worries, thank you for taking a look anyway!
>>
>>>
>>> Am 20.06.23 um 02:42 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem.h b/include/drm/drm_gem.h
>>>> index bbc721870c13..5ec8148a30ee 100644
>>>> --- a/include/drm/drm_gem.h
>>>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem.h
>>>> @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@
>>>>   #include <linux/kref.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/dma-resv.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
>>>>   #include <drm/drm_vma_manager.h>
>>>> @@ -379,6 +381,18 @@ struct drm_gem_object {
>>>>        */
>>>>       struct dma_resv _resv;
>>>> +    /**
>>>> +     * @gpuva:
>>>> +     *
>>>> +     * Provides the list of GPU VAs attached to this GEM object.
>>>> +     *
>>>> +     * Drivers should lock list accesses with the GEMs &dma_resv lock
>>>> +     * (&drm_gem_object.resv).
>>>> +     */
>>>> +    struct {
>>>> +        struct list_head list;
>>>> +    } gpuva;
>>>> +
>>>>       /**
>>>>        * @funcs:
>>>>        *
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that it's not a good idea to attach this directly to 
>>> the GEM object.
>>
>> Why do you think so? IMHO having a common way to connect mappings to 
>> their backing buffers is a good thing, since every driver needs this 
>> connection anyway.
>>
>> E.g. when a BO gets evicted, drivers can just iterate the list of 
>> mappings and, as the circumstances require, invalidate the 
>> corresponding mappings or to unmap all existing mappings of a given 
>> buffer.
>>
>> What would be the advantage to let every driver implement a driver 
>> specific way of keeping this connection?
> 
> Flexibility. For example on amdgpu the mappings of a BO are groups by VM 
> address spaces.
> 
> E.g. the BO points to multiple bo_vm structures which in turn have lists 
> of their mappings.

Isn't this (almost) the same relationship I introduce with the GPUVA 
manager?

If you would switch over to the GPUVA manager right now, it would be 
that every GEM has a list of it's mappings (the gpuva list). The mapping 
is represented by struct drm_gpuva (of course embedded in driver 
specific structure(s)) which has a pointer to the VM address space it is 
part of, namely the GPUVA manager instance. And the GPUVA manager keeps 
a maple tree of it's mappings as well.

If you still would like to *directly* (indirectly you already have that 
relationship) keep a list of GPUVA managers (VM address spaces) per GEM, 
you could still do that in a driver specific way.

Do I miss something?

> 
> Additional to that there is a state maschine associated with the 
> mappings, e.g. if the page tables are up to date or need to be updated 
> etc....
> 
>> Do you see cases where this kind of connection between mappings and 
>> backing buffers wouldn't be good enough? If so, which cases do you 
>> have in mind? Maybe we can cover them in a common way as well?
> 
> Yeah, we have tons of cases like that. But I have no idea how to 
> generalize them.

They could still remain to be driver specific then, right?

> 
>>
>>>
>>> As you wrote in the commit message it's highly driver specific what 
>>> to map and where to map it.
>>
>> In the end the common case should be that in a VA space at least every 
>> mapping being backed by a BO is represented by a struct drm_gpuva.
> 
> Oh, no! We also have mappings not backed by a BO at all! For example for 
> partial resident textures or data routing to internal hw etc...
> 
> You can't be sure that a mapping is backed by a BO at all.

I fully agree, that's why I wrote "the common case should be that in a 
VA space at least every mapping *being backed by a BO* is represented by 
a struct drm_gpuva".

Mappings not being backed by an actual BO would not be linked to a GEM 
of course.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Instead I suggest to have a separate structure for mappings in a VA 
>>> space which driver can then add to their GEM objects or whatever they 
>>> want to map into their VMs.
>>
>> Which kind of separate structure for mappings? Another one analogous 
>> to struct drm_gpuva?
> 
> Well similar to what amdgpu uses BO -> one structure for each 
> combination of BO and VM -> mappings inside that VM

As explained above, I think that's exactly what the GPUVA manager does, 
just in another order:

BO has list of mappings, mappings have pointer to VM, VM has list (or 
actually a maple tree) of mappings.

You see any advantages or disadvantages of either order of 
relationships? For me it looks like it doesn't really matter which one 
to pick.

- Danilo

> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
>>
>> - Danilo
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>
>>
>