Am 15.11.20 um 07:34 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 11/14/20 4:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 9:41 AM Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com wrote:
Am 13.11.20 um 21:52 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 6/22/20 1:50 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:45 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 22.06.20 um 16:32 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > On 6/22/20 9:18 AM, Christian König wrote: >> Am 21.06.20 um 08:03 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: >>> Will be used to reroute CPU mapped BO's page faults once >>> device is removed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c | 8 ++++++++ >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c | 10 ++++++++++ >>> include/drm/drm_file.h | 2 ++ >>> include/drm/drm_gem.h | 2 ++ >>> 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >>> index c4c704e..67c0770 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c >>> @@ -188,6 +188,12 @@ struct drm_file *drm_file_alloc(struct >>> drm_minor *minor) >>> goto out_prime_destroy; >>> } >>> + file->dummy_page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO); >>> + if (!file->dummy_page) { >>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>> + goto out_prime_destroy; >>> + } >>> + >>> return file; >>> out_prime_destroy: >>> @@ -284,6 +290,8 @@ void drm_file_free(struct drm_file *file) >>> if (dev->driver->postclose) >>> dev->driver->postclose(dev, file); >>> + __free_page(file->dummy_page); >>> + >>> drm_prime_destroy_file_private(&file->prime); >>> WARN_ON(!list_empty(&file->event_list)); >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c >>> index 1de2cde..c482e9c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_prime.c >>> @@ -335,6 +335,13 @@ int drm_gem_prime_fd_to_handle(struct >>> drm_device *dev, >>> ret = drm_prime_add_buf_handle(&file_priv->prime, >>> dma_buf, *handle); >>> + >>> + if (!ret) { >>> + obj->dummy_page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO); >>> + if (!obj->dummy_page) >>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>> + } >>> + >> While the per file case still looks acceptable this is a clear NAK >> since it will massively increase the memory needed for a prime >> exported object. >> >> I think that this is quite overkill in the first place and for the >> hot unplug case we can just use the global dummy page as well. >> >> Christian. > Global dummy page is good for read access, what do you do on write > access ? My first approach was indeed to map at first global dummy > page as read only and mark the vma->vm_flags as !VM_SHARED assuming > that this would trigger Copy On Write flow in core mm > (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.boo...) > > > on the next page fault to same address triggered by a write > access but > then i realized a new COW page will be allocated for each such > mapping > and this is much more wasteful then having a dedicated page per GEM > object. Yeah, but this is only for a very very small corner cases. What we need to prevent is increasing the memory usage during normal operation to much.
Using memory during the unplug is completely unproblematic because we just released quite a bunch of it by releasing all those system memory buffers.
And I'm pretty sure that COWed pages are correctly accounted towards the used memory of a process.
So I think if that approach works as intended and the COW pages are released again on unmapping it would be the perfect solution to the problem.
Daniel what do you think?
If COW works, sure sounds reasonable. And if we can make sure we managed to drop all the system allocations (otherwise suddenly 2x memory usage, worst case). But I have no idea whether we can retroshoehorn that into an established vma, you might have fun stuff like a mkwrite handler there (which I thought is the COW handler thing, but really no idea).
If we need to massively change stuff then I think rw dummy page, allocated on first fault after hotunplug (maybe just make it one per object, that's simplest) seems like the much safer option. Much less code that can go wrong. -Daniel
Regarding COW, i was looking into how to properly implement it from within the fault handler (i.e. ttm_bo_vm_fault) and the main obstacle I hit is that of exclusive access to the vm_area_struct, i need to be able to modify vma->vm_flags (and vm_page_prot) to remove VM_SHARED bit so COW can be triggered on subsequent write access fault (here https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.boo...)
but core mm takes only read side mm_sem (here for example https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.boo...)
and so I am not supposed to modify vm_area_struct in this case. I am not sure if it's legit to write lock tthe mm_sem from this point. I found some discussions about this here https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flkml.iu.edu... but it wasn't really clear to me what's the solution.
In any case, seems to me that easier and more memory saving solution would be to just switch to per ttm bo dumy rw page that would be allocated on demand as you suggested here. This should also take care of imported BOs and flink cases. Then i can drop the per device FD and per GEM object FD dummy BO and the ugly loop i am using in patch 2 to match faulting BO to the right dummy page.
Does this makes sense ?
I still don't see the information leak as much of a problem, but if Daniel insists we should probably do this.
Well amdgpu doesn't clear buffers by default, so indeed you guys are a lot more laissez-faire here. But in general we really don't do that kind of leaking. Iirc there's even radeonsi bugs because else clears, and radeonsi happily displays gunk :-)
But could we at least have only one page per client instead of per BO?
I think you can do one page per file descriptor or something like that. But gets annoying with shared bo, especially with dma_buf_mmap forwarding. -Daniel
Christian - is your concern more with too much page allocations or with extra pointer member cluttering TTM BO struct ?
Yes, that is one problem.
Because we can allocate the dummy page on demand only when needed. It's just seems to me that keeping it per BO streamlines the code as I don't need to have different handling for local vs imported BOs.
Why should you have a difference between local vs imported BOs?
Christian.
Andrey