Am 20.11.19 um 13:19 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:09 PM Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 1:02 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
What am I missing?
The assumption is that when you want to create a vmap of a DMA-buf buffer the buffer needs to be pinned somehow.
E.g. without dynamic dma-buf handling you would need to have an active attachment. With dynamic handling the requirements could be lowered to using the pin()/unpin() callbacks.
Yeah right now everyone seems to have an attachment, and that's how we get away with all this. But the interface isn't supposed to work like that, dma_buf_vmap/unmap is supposed to be a stand-alone thing (you can call it directly on the struct dma_buf, no need for an attachment). Also I don't think non-dynamic drivers should ever call pin/unpin, not their job, holding onto a mapping should be enough to get things pinned.
You also can't lock/unlock inside your vmap callback because you don't have any guarantee that the pointer stays valid as soon as your drop your lock.
Well that's why I asked where the pin/unpin pair is. If you lock&pin, then you do know that the pointer will stay around. But looks like the original patch from Dave for ttm based drivers played fast&loose here with what should be done.
BTW: What is vmap() still used for?
udl, bunch of other things (e.g. bunch of tiny drivers). Not much, but not stuff we can drop.
If we're unlucky we'll actually have a problem with these now. For some of these the attached device is not dma-capable, so dma_map_sg will go boom. With the cached mapping logic we now have this might go sideways for dynamic exporters. Did you test your dynamic dma-buf support for amdgpu with udl?
Short answer no, not at all. Long one: What the heck is udl? And how is it not dma-capable?
Worst case we need to get rid of the fake attachment, fix the vmap locking/pinning, and maybe some more headaches to sort this out.
Well of hand we could require that vmap will also pin a DMA-buf and start fixing amgpu/nouveau/radeon/qxl.
Christian.
-Daniel
-Daniel
Regards, Christian.
Am 20.11.19 um 12:47 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
Hi all,
I've been looking at dma_buf_v(un)map, with a goal to standardize locking for at least dynamic dma-buf exporters/importers, most likely by requiring dma_resv_lock. And I got questions around how this is supposed to work, since a big chunk of drivers seem to entirely lack locking around ttm_bo_kmap. Two big ones:
- ttm_bo_kmap looks at bo->mem to figure out what/where to kmap to get
at that buffer. bo->mem is supposed to be protected with dma_resv_lock, but at least amgpu/nouveau/radeon/qxl don't grab that in their prime vmap function.
- between the vmap and vunmap something needs to make sure the backing
storage doesn't move around. I didn't find that either anywhere, ttm_bo_kmap simply seems to set up the mapping, leaving locking and refcounting to callers.
- vram helpers have at least locking, but I'm still missing the
refcounting. vmwgfx doesn't bother with vmap.
What am I missing?
Thanks, Daniel
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch