[PATCH 0/2] Allow partial memory mapping for cpu memory

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:08:49AM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 07:08:02PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 04:09:55PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 02:54:31AM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 04:45:32PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 01:51:30PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:11:21AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 11:20:56AM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 10:53:38AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 11:05:19AM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > This patch series concludes on the memory mapping fixes and
> > > > > > > > > > improvements by allowing partial memory mapping for the cpu
> > > > > > > > > > memory as well.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > The partial memory mapping by adding an object offset was
> > > > > > > > > > implicitely included in commit 8bdd9ef7e9b1 ("drm/i915/gem: Fix
> > > > > > > > > > Virtual Memory mapping boundaries calculation") for the gtt
> > > > > > > > > > memory.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Does userspace actually care? Do we have a flag or something, so that
> > > > > > > > > userspace can discover this?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Adding complexity of any kind is absolute no-go, unless there's a
> > > > > > > > > userspace need. This also includes the gtt accidental fix.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Actually this missing functionality was initially filed as a bug
> > > > > > > > by mesa folks. So that this patch was requested by them (Lionel
> > > > > > > > is Cc'ed).
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The tests cases that have been sent previously and I'm going to
> > > > > > > > send again, are directly taken from mesa use cases.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please add the relevant mesa MR to this patch then, and some relevant
> > > > > > > explanations for how userspace detects this all and decides to use it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > AFAIK, there is no Mesa MR. We are adding a feature that was
> > > > > > missing, but Mesa already supported it (indeed, Nimroy suggested
> > > > > > adding the Fixes tag for this).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also because, Mesa was receiving an invalid address error and
> > > > > > asked to support the partial mapping of the memory.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Uh this sounds a bit too much like just yolo'ing uabi. There's two cases:
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Either this is a regression, it worked previously, mesa is now angry.
> > > > >   Then we absolutely need a Fixes: tag, and we also need that for the
> > > > >   preceeding work to re-enable this for gtt mappings.
> > > > > 
> > > > > - Or mesa is just plain wrong here, which is what my guess is. Because bo
> > > > >   mappings have always been full-object (except for the old-style shm
> > > > >   mmaps). In that case mesa needs to be fixed (because we're not going to
> > > > >   backport old uapi).
> > > > > 
> > > > >   Also in that case, _if_ (and that's a really big if) we really want this
> > > > >   uapi, we need it in xe too, it needs a proper mesa MR to use it, it
> > > > 
> > > > I looked at this code from Xe PoV to see if we support this and I think
> > > > we actually do as our CPU fault handler more or less just calls
> > > > ttm_bo_vm_fault_reserved which has similar code to this patch. So I
> > > > think this actually a valid fix. Can't be 100% sure though as I quickly
> > > > just reversed engineered this code and TTM.
> > > 
> > > That's the fault path, which isn't relevant here since you already have
> > > the vma set up. The relevant path is the mmap path, which is common for
> > > all gem drivers nowadays and the lookup handled entirely in the core. Well
> > > except for i915-gem being absolutely massively over the top special in
> > > everything. i915-gem being extremely special here is also why this patch
> > > caught my attention, because it just furthers the divergence instead of at
> > > least stopping. Since we've given up on trying to get i915-gem onto common
> > > code and patterns that's not an option, and the reason why xe exists ...
> > > 
> > > Anyway that common gem bo mmap code code is in drm_gem_mmap and still only
> > > allows exact matches.
> > > 
> > > Unless I'm completely blind, it does happen :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Not blind.
> > 
> > > > We don't have IGT test cases for this in Xe though, we likely should add
> > > > some if mesa is doing this.
> > > 
> > > I'd expect they would fail ...
> > >
> > 
> > Just wrote one, it fails.
> > 
> > So agree with everything you are saying. Sorry for the noise. 
> 
> To be clear what I agree with:
> 
> - Xe doesn't support partial mmaps, if the i915 / Mesa needs to support
>   partial mmaps Xe needs changed in step with the i915 (it is a 1 line
>   change in drm_gem_mmap which then will a community ack too)
> - We need IGTs for partial mmaps in both i915 and Xe
> - The Mesa use needs to be understood ensuring this isn't a bug on their
>   end and this actually required
> - If partial mmaps are actually required, I'd like to see this in 6.12
>   for Xe as we are about to remove force probe

Fwiw I concur on this all. Maybe one thing to add is that if i915/mesa do
not need partial mmaps, then we should also again removed them for gtt
mmaps since that patch already slipped in.

Cheers, Sima
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch