On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:31 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Qiang Yu <yuq825@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:04:17AM +0800, Qiang Yu wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > Qiang Yu <yuq825@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> > >>>> >> This reverts commit 45c3d213a400c952ab7119f394c5293bb6877e6b. >>>> >> >>>> >> lima driver need preclose to wait all task in the context >>>> >> created within closing file to finish before free all the >>>> >> buffer object. Otherwise pending tesk may fail and get >>>> >> noisy MMU fault message. >>>> >> >>>> >> Move this wait to each buffer object free function can >>>> >> achieve the same result but some buffer object is shared >>>> >> with other file context, but we only want to wait the >>>> >> closing file context's tasks. So the implementation is >>>> >> not that straight forword compared to the preclose one. >>>> > >>>> > You should just separate your MMU structures from drm_file, and have >>>> > drm_file and the jobs using it keep a reference on them. This is what >>>> > I've done in V3D as well. >>>> >>>> It's not the VM/MMU struct that causes this problem, it's each buffer >>>> object that gets freed before task is done (postclose is after buffer free). >>>> If you mean I should keep reference of all buffers for tasks, that's not >>>> as simple as just waiting task done before free buffers. >>> >>> Why can't you do that waiting in the postclose hook? If it's the lack of >>> reference-counting in your driver for gem bo, then I'd say you need to >>> roll out some reference counting. Relying on the implicit reference >>> provided by the core is kinda not so great (which was the reason I've >>> thrown out the preclose hook). There's also per-bo open/close hooks. >> >> It's possible to not use preclose, but the implementation is not as simple >> and straight forward as the preclose I think. There're two method I can >> think of: >> 1. do wait when free buffers callback unmap buffer from this process's >> lima VM (wait buffer reservation object), this is fine and simple, but >> there's case that this buffer is shared between two processes, so the >> best way should be only waiting fences from this process, so we'd >> better do some record for fences for a "perfect waiting" >> 2. keep a reference of involved buffers for a task, unreference it when >> task done, also keep a reference of the buffer mapping in this process's >> lima VM (this is more complicated to implement) >> >> But if there's a preclose, just wait all this process's task done, then >> unmap/free buffers, it's simple and straight forward. I'd like to hear if >> there's other better way for only use postclose. > > Refcount your buffers. Borrowing references from other places tends to > result in a maintenance headache with no end. So solution 2. In current lima implementation, refcount involved buffer for task is done in user space. So kernel's task object don't keep that. User space driver is responsible not unmap/free buffer before task is complete. This works simple and fine except the case that user press Ctrl+C to terminate the application which will force to close drm fd. I really don't think adding buffer refcount for tasks in kernel just for this case is valuable because it has no benefits for normal case but some extra load. Regards, Qiang > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
