[RFC 26/34] drm/xe: VMs don't need the mem_access protection anymore

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:29:57PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 26/01/2024 20:30, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > All the VM operations are now protected or by the IOCTL
> > calls, or by sched/exec operations or by the specific
> > xe_pm_runtime_{get,put} around the duration of the LR VMs.
> > 
> > So, these inner mem_access protections can be removed.
> 
> Would this be a good place to split the series?

yeap, it is good to split the series. Let's first try to get
that first part in so we protect the missing cases from the outer
bounds as we continue to discuss the rest and try to come up with
a good solution.

> AFAICT a lot of the
> nightmares originate from here. Like first part of the series moves the rpm
> to be the outermost thing, but we still keep the important vm rpm protection
> here, so shouldn't need the CT, sched stuff etc yet. And in theory there is
> still a path to d3cold without this patch, I think. Also playing devils
> advocate, since we already end up having rpm protection for LR vm, why not
> normal vm. Is it worth it?

hmmm... do we really have a path with this in place?

A regular client usage with discrete for instance.
The userspace creates the VM. And then user doesn't touch the input,
screen goes blank, display off, but the VM  is still there.
When we would enter the D3cold? Really only when we don't have
any compositor running? only on non-display cases?

For the LR ones that's a good question, Matt Brost was concerned with that.
Apparently we could have a case where ioctl returned, then the job was
freed because the hw fence is immediatelly signalled on that case.
So we wouldn't have other protection.

the job one seemed to be the easiest to take care of the exec_queue,
but there's this caveat of the LR case. Perhaps we need to find a
better outer place to protect executions?

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 7 -------
> >   1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > index 9ad154a01ad7..f314ff128028 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > @@ -1280,9 +1280,6 @@ struct xe_vm *xe_vm_create(struct xe_device *xe, u32 flags)
> >   	vm->pt_ops = &xelp_pt_ops;
> > -	if (!(flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION))
> > -		xe_device_mem_access_get(xe);
> > -
> >   	vm_resv_obj = drm_gpuvm_resv_object_alloc(&xe->drm);
> >   	if (!vm_resv_obj) {
> >   		err = -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -1391,8 +1388,6 @@ struct xe_vm *xe_vm_create(struct xe_device *xe, u32 flags)
> >   	for_each_tile(tile, xe, id)
> >   		xe_range_fence_tree_fini(&vm->rftree[id]);
> >   	kfree(vm);
> > -	if (!(flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION))
> > -		xe_device_mem_access_put(xe);
> >   	return ERR_PTR(err);
> >   }
> > @@ -1515,8 +1510,6 @@ static void vm_destroy_work_func(struct work_struct *w)
> >   	xe_assert(xe, !vm->size);
> >   	if (!(vm->flags & XE_VM_FLAG_MIGRATION)) {
> > -		xe_device_mem_access_put(xe);
> > -
> >   		if (xe->info.has_asid && vm->usm.asid) {
> >   			mutex_lock(&xe->usm.lock);
> >   			lookup = xa_erase(&xe->usm.asid_to_vm, vm->usm.asid);