On 2017å¹´05æ??17æ?¥ 11:15, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 17/05/17 12:04 PM, zhoucm1 wrote: >> On 2017å¹´05æ??17æ?¥ 09:18, Michel Dänzer wrote: >>> On 16/05/17 06:25 PM, Chunming Zhou wrote: >>>> Change-Id: I8eb6d7f558da05510e429d3bf1d48c8cec6c1977 >>>> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou at amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 3 +++ >>>> include/uapi/drm/amdgpu_drm.h | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c >>>> index bca1fb5..f3e7525 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c >>>> @@ -2547,6 +2547,9 @@ int amdgpu_vm_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, >>>> void *data, struct drm_file *filp) >>>> case AMDGPU_VM_OP_UNRESERVE_VMID: >>>> amdgpu_vm_free_reserved_vmid(adev, &fpriv->vm, AMDGPU_GFXHUB); >>>> break; >>>> + case AMDGPU_VM_OP_RESET: >>>> + fpriv->vram_lost_counter = >>>> atomic_read(&adev->vram_lost_counter); >>>> + break; >>> How do you envision the UMDs using this? I can mostly think of them >>> calling this ioctl when a context is created or destroyed. But that >>> would also allow any other remaining contexts using the same DRM file >>> descriptor to use all ioctls again. So, I think there needs to be a >>> vram_lost_counter in struct amdgpu_ctx instead of in struct amdgpu_fpriv. >> struct amdgpu_fpriv for vram_lost_counter is proper place, especially >> for ioctl return value. >> if you need to reset ctx one by one, we can mark all contexts of that >> vm, and then reset by userspace. > I'm not following. With vram_lost_counter in amdgpu_fpriv, if any > context calls this ioctl, all other contexts using the same file > descriptor will also be considered safe again, right? Yes, but it really depends on userspace requirement, if you need to reset ctx one by one, we can mark all contexts of that vm to guilty, and then reset one context by userspace. > So I'm still not > sure how this is supposed to be used by the UMDs. Can you describe your > idea for that? Correct first, this idea is picked up from Christian. We just one to provide a possibility to handle ENODEV and recover system, rather than just system dead when vram is lost. And how UMDs handle reset? which obviously need to more discussion between kernel and userspace. Regards, David Zhou > > >>> It's hard to be sure whether that's workable for the UMD without at >>> least a working prototype... >> Totally agree, if you can help to do this in userspace, I'd like to >> support you from kernel side, or Christian. > I'm busy with other stuff. > >
