[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915/gem: Unify user object creation

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 4:35 AM Matthew Auld
<matthew.william.auld at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 at 23:39, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> >
> > Instead of hand-rolling the same three calls in each function, pull them
> > into an i915_gem_object_create_user helper.  Apart from re-ordering of
> > the placements array ENOMEM check, the only functional change here
> > should be that i915_gem_dumb_create now calls i915_gem_flush_free_objects
> > which it probably should have been calling all along.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c | 106 +++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> > index 391c8c4a12172..69bf9ec777642 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> > @@ -11,13 +11,14 @@
> >  #include "i915_trace.h"
> >  #include "i915_user_extensions.h"
> >
> > -static u32 object_max_page_size(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > +static u32 object_max_page_size(struct intel_memory_region **placements,
> > +                               unsigned int n_placements)
> >  {
> >         u32 max_page_size = 0;
> >         int i;
> >
> > -       for (i = 0; i < obj->mm.n_placements; i++) {
> > -               struct intel_memory_region *mr = obj->mm.placements[i];
> > +       for (i = 0; i < n_placements; i++) {
> > +               struct intel_memory_region *mr = placements[i];
> >
> >                 GEM_BUG_ON(!is_power_of_2(mr->min_page_size));
> >                 max_page_size = max_t(u32, max_page_size, mr->min_page_size);
> > @@ -81,22 +82,35 @@ static int i915_gem_publish(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > -static int
> > -i915_gem_setup(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, u64 size)
> > +static struct drm_i915_gem_object *
> > +i915_gem_object_create_user(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u64 size,
> > +                           struct intel_memory_region **placements,
> > +                           unsigned int n_placements)
> >  {
> > -       struct intel_memory_region *mr = obj->mm.placements[0];
> > +       struct intel_memory_region *mr = placements[0];
> > +       struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> >         unsigned int flags;
> >         int ret;
> >
> > -       size = round_up(size, object_max_page_size(obj));
> > +       i915_gem_flush_free_objects(i915);
> > +
> > +       obj = i915_gem_object_alloc();
> > +       if (!obj)
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > +       size = round_up(size, object_max_page_size(placements, n_placements));
> >         if (size == 0)
> > -               return -EINVAL;
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> >         /* For most of the ABI (e.g. mmap) we think in system pages */
> >         GEM_BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(size, PAGE_SIZE));
> >
> >         if (i915_gem_object_size_2big(size))
> > -               return -E2BIG;
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
> > +
> > +       ret = object_set_placements(obj, placements, n_placements);
> > +       if (ret)
> > +               goto object_free;
>
> Thinking on this again, it might be way too thorny to expose
> create_user as-is to other parts of i915, like we do in the last
> patch. Since the caller will be expected to manually validate the
> placements, otherwise we might crash and burn in weird ways as new
> users pop up. i.e it needs the same validation that happens as part of
> the extension. Also as new extensions arrive, like with PXP, that also
> has to get bolted onto create_user, which might have its own hidden
> constraints.

Perhaps.  Do you have a suggestion for how to make it available to
selftests without exposing it to "the rest of i915"?  If you want, I
can make create_user duplicate the placements uniqueness check.
That's really the only validation currently in the ioctl besides all
the stuff for making sure that the class/instance provided by the user
isn't bogus.  But if we've got real i915_memory_region pointers, we
don't need that.

--Jason