On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 11:13 AM Christian König ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com wrote:
Am 23.07.21 um 10:47 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 02:41:23PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Doing this in vmw_ttm_destroy() is to late.
It turned out that this is not a good idea at all because it leaves pointers to freed up system memory pages in the GART tables of the drivers.
So I wanted to review this series, and I can't reconcile your claim here with the demidlayering Dave has done. The driver patches here don't ouright undo what Dave has done, but that means the bug has been preexisting since forever (or is due to some other change?), and your commit message is a bit confusing here.
The final patch just undoes the demidlayering from Dave, and I really don't see where there's even a functional change there.
And even these patches here don't really change a hole lot with the calling sequence for at least final teardown: ttm_tt_destroy_common calls ttm_tt_unpopulate as the first thing, so at least there there's no change.
Can you pls elaborate more clearly what exactly you're fixing and what exactly needs to be reordered and where this bug is from (commit sha1)? As is I'm playing detective and the evidence presented is extremely since and I can't reconcile it at all.
I mean I know you don't like typing commit message and documentation, but it does get occasionally rather frustrating on the reviewer side if I have to interpolate between some very sparse hints for this stuff :-/
Yeah, when have seen the history it's rather obvious what's wrong here and I expected Dave to review it himself.
Previously we had three states in TTM for a tt object: Allocated -> Populated -> Bound which on destruction where done in the order unbind -> unpopulate -> free.
Dave moved handling of the bound state into the drivers since it is basically a driver decision and not a TTM decision what should be bound and what not (that part perfectly makes sense).
I haven't reviewed all the patches from Dave, only the one you pointed at (in the last patch). And that one I still can't match up with your description. If there's other commits relevant, can you pls dig them out?
Like it all makes sense what you're saying and matches the code, I just can't match it up with the commit you're referencing.
The problem is that he also moved doing the unbind into the free callback instead of the unpopulate callback. This result in stale page pointers in the GART if that unpopulate operation isn't immediately followed by a free.
Thinking more about it if we do populated->unpopulated->populated then we would also have stale pointers to the old pages which is even worse.
This is also not de-midlayering since we already have a proper ttm_tt_init()/ttm_tt_fini() functions which should work nicely for the tt object.
Well you're last patch moves the ttm_tt_destroy_common stuff back into ttm, which kinda is de-demidlayering. So I'm confused.
Other bit: I think it'd be good to document this properly in the callbacks, and maybe ideally go about and kerneldoc-ify the entire ttm_tt.h header. Otherwise when we eventually (never?) get around to that, everyone has forgotten these semantic details and issues again. -Daniel
Christian.
-Daniel
Signed-off-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ttm_buffer.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ttm_buffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ttm_buffer.c index b0973c27e774..904031d03dbe 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ttm_buffer.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_ttm_buffer.c @@ -526,14 +526,9 @@ static void vmw_ttm_destroy(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_tt *ttm) struct vmw_ttm_tt *vmw_be = container_of(ttm, struct vmw_ttm_tt, dma_ttm);
- vmw_ttm_unbind(bdev, ttm); ttm_tt_destroy_common(bdev, ttm); vmw_ttm_unmap_dma(vmw_be);
- if (vmw_be->dev_priv->map_mode == vmw_dma_alloc_coherent)
ttm_tt_fini(&vmw_be->dma_ttm);- else
ttm_tt_fini(ttm);
- ttm_tt_fini(ttm); if (vmw_be->mob) vmw_mob_destroy(vmw_be->mob);
@@ -578,6 +573,8 @@ static void vmw_ttm_unpopulate(struct ttm_device *bdev, dma_ttm); unsigned int i;
- vmw_ttm_unbind(bdev, ttm);
- if (vmw_tt->mob) { vmw_mob_destroy(vmw_tt->mob); vmw_tt->mob = NULL;
-- 2.25.1