On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 07:10:25PM +0900, InKi Dae wrote: > 2012/1/9 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 03:20:48PM +0900, InKi Dae wrote: > >> I has test dmabuf based drm gem module for exynos and I found one problem. > >> you can refer to this test repository: > >> http://git.infradead.org/users/kmpark/linux-samsung/shortlog/refs/heads/exynos-drm-dmabuf > >> > >> at this repository, I added some exception codes for resource release > >> in addition to Dave's patch sets. > >> > >> let's suppose we use dmabuf based vb2 and drm gem with physically > >> continuous memory(no IOMMU) and we try to share allocated buffer > >> between them(v4l2 and drm driver). > >> > >> 1. request memory allocation through drm gem interface. > >> 2. request DRM_SET_PRIME ioctl with the gem handle to get a fd to the > >> gem object. > >> - internally, private gem based dmabuf moudle calls drm_buf_export() > >> to register allocated gem object to fd. > >> 3. request qbuf with the fd(got from 2) and DMABUF type to set the > >> buffer to v4l2 based device. > >> - internally, vb2 plug in module gets a buffer to the fd and then > >> calls dmabuf->ops->map_dmabuf() callback to get the sg table > >> containing physical memory info to the gem object. and then the > >> physical memory info would be copied to vb2_xx_buf object. > >> for DMABUF feature for v4l2 and videobuf2 framework, you can refer to > >> this repository: > >> git://github.com/robclark/kernel-omap4.git drmplane-dmabuf > >> > >> after that, if v4l2 driver want to release vb2_xx_buf object with > >> allocated memory region by user request, how should we do?. refcount > >> to vb2_xx_buf is dependent on videobuf2 framework. so when vb2_xx_buf > >> object is released videobuf2 framework don't know who is using the > >> physical memory region. so this physical memory region is released and > >> when drm driver tries to access the region or to release it also, a > >> problem would be induced. > >> > >> for this problem, I added get_shared_cnt() callback to dma-buf.h but > >> I'm not sure that this is good way. maybe there may be better way. > >> if there is any missing point, please let me know. > > > > The dma_buf object needs to hold a reference on the underlying > > (necessarily reference-counted) buffer object when the exporter creates > > the dma_buf handle. This reference should then get dropped in the > > exporters dma_buf->ops->release() function, which is only getting called > > when the last reference to the dma_buf disappears. > > > > when the exporter creates the dma_buf handle(for example, gem -> fd), > I think the refcount of gem object should be increased at this point, > and decreased by dma_buf->ops->release() again because when the > dma_buf is created and dma_buf_export() is called, this dma_buf refers > to the gem object one time. and in case of inporter(fd -> gem), > file->f_count of the dma_buf is increased and then when this gem > object is released by user request such as drm close or > drn_gem_close_ioctl, dma_buf_put() should be called by > dma_buf->ops->detach() to decrease file->f_count again because the gem > object refers to the dma_buf. for this, you can refer to my test > repository I mentioned above. but the problem is that when a buffer is > released by one side, another can't know whether the buffer already > was released or not. Nope, dma_buf_put should not be called by ->detach. The importer gets his reference when importing the dma_buf and needs to drop that reference himself when it's done using the buffer by calling dma_buf_put (i.e. after the last ->detach call). I think adding separate reference counting to ->attach and ->detach is a waste of time and only papers over buggy importers. Additionally the importer does _not_ control the lifetime of an dma_buf object and it's underlying backing storage. It hence may _never_ free the backing storage itself, that's the job of the exporter. With that cleared up, referencing the exporters underlying buffer object from the dma_buf will just do the right thing. > note : in case of sharing a buffer between v4l2 and drm driver, the > memory info would be copied vb2_xx_buf to xx_gem or xx_gem to > vb2_xx_buf through sg table. in this case, only memory info is used to > share, not some objects. Hm, maybe I need to take a look at the currently proposed v4l dma_buf patches ;-) atm I don't have an idea what exactly you're talking about. Yours, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@xxxxxxxx Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
