Am 26.03.2018 um 17:42 schrieb Jerome Glisse:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:58:55AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 22.03.2018 um 08:18 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> [SNIP]
>>> Key take away from that was that you can't take any locks from neither the
>>> MMU notifier nor the shrinker you also take while calling kmalloc (or
>>> simpler speaking get_user_pages()).
>>>
>>> Additional to that in the MMU or shrinker callback all different kinds of
>>> locks might be held, so you basically can't assume that you do thinks like
>>> recursive page table walks or call dma_unmap_anything.
>> That sounds like a design bug in mmu_notifiers, since it would render them
>> useless for KVM. And they were developed for that originally. I think I'll
>> chat with Jerome to understand this, since it's all rather confusing.
> Doing dma_unmap() during mmu_notifier callback should be fine, it was last
> time i check. However there is no formal contract that it is ok to do so.
As I said before dma_unmap() isn't the real problem here.
The issues is more that you can't take a lock in the MMU notifier which
you would also take while allocating memory without GFP_NOIO.
That makes it rather tricky to do any command submission, e.g. you need
to grab all the pages/memory/resources prehand, then make sure that you
don't have a MMU notifier running concurrently and do the submission.
If any of the prerequisites isn't fulfilled we need to restart the
operation.
> [SNIP]
> A slightly better solution is using atomic counter:
> driver_range_start() {
> atomic_inc(&mydev->notifier_count);
...
Yeah, that is exactly what amdgpu is doing now. Sorry if my description
didn't made that clear.
> I would like to see driver using same code, as it means one place to fix
> issues. I had for a long time on my TODO list doing the above conversion
> to amd or radeon kernel driver. I am pushing up my todo list hopefully in
> next few weeks i can send an rfc so people can have a real sense of how
> it can look.
Certainly a good idea, but I think we might have that separate to HMM.
TTM suffered really from feature overload, e.g. trying to do everything
in a single subsystem. And it would be rather nice to have coherent
userptr handling for GPUs as separate feature.
Regards,
Christian.
