[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/25] dma-fence: prime lockdep annotations

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:48 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:01:10PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 10.07.20 um 14:54 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:48:16PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 10.07.20 um 14:43 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Below the paragraph I've added after our discussions around dma-fences
> > > > > > outside of drivers/gpu. Good enough for an ack on this, or want something
> > > > > > changed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Daniel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > + * Note that only GPU drivers have a reasonable excuse for both requiring
> > > > > > > + * &mmu_interval_notifier and &shrinker callbacks at the same time as having to
> > > > > > > + * track asynchronous compute work using &dma_fence. No driver outside of
> > > > > > > + * drivers/gpu should ever call dma_fence_wait() in such contexts.
> > > > > I was hoping we'd get to 'no driver outside GPU should even use
> > > > > dma_fence()'
> > > > My last status was that V4L could come use dma_fences as well.
> > > I'm sure lots of places *could* use it, but I think I understood that
> > > it is a bad idea unless you have to fit into the DRM uAPI?
> >
> > It would be a bit questionable if you use the container objects we came up
> > with in the DRM subsystem outside of it.
> >
> > But using the dma_fence itself makes sense for everything which could do
> > async DMA in general.
>
> dma_fence only possibly makes some sense if you intend to expose the
> completion outside a single driver.
>
> The prefered kernel design pattern for this is to connect things with
> a function callback.
>
> So the actual use case of dma_fence is quite narrow and tightly linked
> to DRM.
>
> I don't think we should spread this beyond DRM, I can't see a reason.

Yeah v4l has a legit reason to use dma_fence, android wants that
there. There's even been patches proposed years ago, but never landed
because android is using some vendor hack horror show for camera
drivers right now.

But there is an effort going on to fix that (under the libcamera
heading), and I expect that once we have that, it'll want dma_fence
support. So outright excluding everyone from dma_fence is a bit too
much. They definitely shouldn't be used though for entirely
independent stuff.

> > > You are better to do something contained in the single driver where
> > > locking can be analyzed.
> > >
> > > > I'm not 100% sure, but wouldn't MMU notifier + dma_fence be a valid use case
> > > > for things like custom FPGA interfaces as well?
> > > I don't think we should expand the list of drivers that use this
> > > technique.
> > > Drivers that can't suspend should pin memory, not use blocked
> > > notifiers to created pinned memory.
> >
> > Agreed totally, it's a complete pain to maintain even for the GPU drivers.
> >
> > Unfortunately that doesn't change users from requesting it. So I'm pretty
> > sure we are going to see more of this.
>
> Kernel maintainers need to say no.
>
> The proper way to do DMA on no-faulting hardware is page pinning.
>
> Trying to improve performance of limited HW by using sketchy
> techniques at the cost of general system stability should be a NAK.

Well that's pretty much gpu drivers, all the horrors for a bit more speed :-)

On the text itself, should I upgrade to "must not" instead of "should
not"? Or more needed?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch