Am 07.08.2018 um 15:37 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 03:17:06PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 07.08.2018 um 14:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:51:50PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 07.08.2018 um 14:43 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 01:23:19PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 07.08.2018 um 13:05 schrieb Chris Wilson:
amdgpu only uses shared-fences internally, but dmabuf importers rely on
implicit write hazard tracking via the reservation_object.fence_excl.
Well I would rather suggest a solution where we stop doing this.
The problem here is that i915 assumes that a write operation always needs
exclusive access to an object protected by an reservation object.
At least for amdgpu, radeon and nouveau this assumption is incorrect, but
only amdgpu has a design where userspace is not lying to the kernel about
it's read/write access.
What we should do instead is to add a flag to each shared fence to note if
it is a write operation or not. Then we can trivially add a function to wait
on on those in i915.
I should have pushed harder for this solution when the problem came up
initially,
For shared buffers in an implicit syncing setup like dri2 the exclusive
fence _is_ your write fence.
And exactly that is absolutely not correct if you ask me.
The exclusive fence is for two use cases, the first one is for drivers which
don't care about concurrent accesses and only use serialized accesses and
the second is for kernel uses under the hood of userspace, evictions, buffer
moves etc..
What i915 does is to abuse that concept for write once read many situations,
and that in turn is the bug we need to fix here.
Again, the exclusive fence was added for implicit sync usage like dri2/3.
_Not_ for your own buffer manager. If you want to separate these two
usages, then I guess we can do that, but claiming that i915 is the odd one
out just aint true. You're arguing against all other kms drivers we have
here.
No I'm not. I discussed exactly that use case with Maarten when the
reservation object was introduced.
I think that Maarten named the explicit fence on purpose "explicit" fence
and not "write" fence to make that distinction clear.
I have to admit that this wasn't really documented, but it indeed was the
original purpose to get away from the idea that writes needs to be
exclusive.
That's how this stuff works. Note it's only
for implicit fencing for dri2 shared buffers. i915 lies as much as
everyone else for explicit syncing.
That is really really ugly and should be fixed instead.
It works and is uapi now. What's the gain in "fixing" it?
It allows you to implement explicit fencing in the uapi without breaking
backward compatibility.
See the situation with amdgpu and intel is the same as with userspace with
mixed implicit and explicit fencing.
If that isn't fixed we will run into the same problem when DRI3 gets
implicit fencing and some applications starts to use it while others still
rely on the explicit fencing.
I think we're a bit cross-eyed on exact semantics, but yes this is exactly
the use-case. Chris Wilson's use-case tries to emulate exactly what would
happen if implicitly fenced amdgpu rendered buffer should be displayed on
an i915 output. Then you need to set the exclusive fence correctly.
Yes, exactly. That's what I totally agree on.
And yes we called them exclusive/shared because shared fences could also
be write fences. But for the implicitly synced userspace case, exclusive =
The write fence.
So probably Chris' patch ends up syncing too much (since for explicit
syncing you don't want to attach an exclusive fence, because userspace
passes the fence around already to the atomic ioctl). But at least it's
correct for the implicit case. But that's entirely an optimization problem
within amdgpu.
Completely agree as well, but Chris patch actually just optimizes
things. It is not necessary for correct operation.
See previously we just waited for the BO to be idle, now Chris patch
collects all fences (shared and exclusive) and adds that as single
elusive fence to avoid blocking.
Summary: If you have a shared buffer used in implicitly synced buffer
sharing, you _must_ set the exclusive fence to cover all write access.
And how should command submission know that?
I mean we add the exclusive or shared fence during command submission,
but that IOCTL has not the slightest idea if the BO is then used for
explicit or for implicit fencing.
In any other case (not shared, or not as part of implicitly synced
protocol), you can do whatever you want. So we're not conflagrating
exclusive with write here at all. And yes this is exactly what i915 and
all other drivers do - for explicit fencing we don't set the exclusive
fence, but leave that all to userspace. Also, userspace tells us (because
it knows how the protocol works, not the kernel) when to set an exclusive
fence.
To extend that at least the lower layers of the user space driver
doesn't know if we have explicit or implicit fencing either.
The only component who really does know that is the DDX or more general
the driver instance inside the display server.
And when that component gets the buffer to display it command submission
should already be long done.
Regards,
Christian.
For historical reasons the relevant uapi parts are called
read/write, but that's just an accident of (maybe too clever) uapi reuse,
not their actual semantics.
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
