Am 16.09.20 um 08:56 schrieb Dave Airlie:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 16:44, Thomas Hellström (Intel)
<thomas_os@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/16/20 6:28 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 14:19, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 00:12, Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dave,
I think we should just completely nuke ttm_tt_bind() and ttm_tt_unbind()
and all of that.
Drivers can to this from their move_notify() callback now instead.
Good plan, I've put a bunch of rework into the same branch,
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fairlied%2Flinux%2Fcommits%2Fttm-half-baked-ideas&data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cc8bcebfc4b904ff1739108d85a0db2a7%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637358362159479923&sdata=vMPrWtiP6qdP5BoTdqNlRXGsYQJ9aPmVvVkFoyWFJWM%3D&reserved=0
but I've fried my brain a bit, I'm having trouble reconciling move
notify and unbinding in the right places, I feel like I'm circling
around the answer but haven't hit it yet.
drm/ttm: add unbind to move notify paths.
In that tree is incorrect and I think where things fall apart, since
if we are moving TTM to VRAM that will unbind the TTM object from the
GTT at move notify time before the move has executed.
I'm feeling a move_complete_notify might be an idea, but I'm wondering
if it's a bad idea.
Dave.
I don't know if this complicates things more, but move_notify was
originally only thought to be an invalidation callback, and was never
intended to drive any other actions in the driver than to invalidate
various GPU bindings.
The idea was that TTM should really never set up any GPU bindings, but
just provide memory where it was gpu-bindable and make sure it was
CPU-mappable where needed. The "exception" was mappable AGP-type
gpu-bindings, for the simple reason that they were needed to provide
CPU-mappings on systems where you couldn't map the pages directly. But
since we set up a GPU map on these systems anyway, many (most) drivers
just made use of that, but others took the step further insisting on
using move_notify() to set up GPU bindings, which was never intended and
adds error paths in the TTM move code that are pretty hard to follow.
So if we're changing things here, I'd vote for the following:
* Driver calls ttm_bo_validate to put memory where it is cpu-mappable
and gpu-bindable
* On successful validate, driver sets up GPU bindings itself.
* move_notify only invalidates GPU bindings and should really return a void.
So that bind() and unbind() stuff is really only needed for cpu-map
through aperture. If we ditch that, then we need to re-define the task
of TTM to provide memory in a cpu-mappable location and figure how
drivers that require cpu-map-through-aperture should handle this, since
they can't use the TTM fault handler for that memory anymore. The same
holds for drivers that want to manage their translation table
themselves, and needs some cpu-mapping operations to go through the
aperture rather than to the pages directly.
If the driver has no special cpu-mapping requirements, it should be
perfectly legal for it to not provide any bind() or unbind() functionality.
I think that is close to where we want to end up, it's just
transitioning through a few intermediate stages to get to it.
I think I can likely put the binds into the driver move callback
instead of the move_notify once I reorg things a bit more, and then
maybe we could split the move out to happen post validate.
I'm just worried about intermediate state here, so if we validate
something into VRAM we still have access to the CPU side backing store
while it's moved in, and vice-versa.
Yes exactly.
For the intermediate step I think the best would be to manually bind the
TT object to the GART after calling ttm_bo_validate() like Thomas suggested.
Unbinding can then happen at two locations:
1. In move_notify() for the case GTT->SYSTEM.
2. When the TT object is destroyed.
Both of those should be inside the driver and not TTM.
Regards,
Christian.
Dave.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
