On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:50 AM 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://github.com/airlied/linux/commits/ttm-half-baked-ideas > >> > >> 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. pre-coffee and all, but for mmap I think we can fix that by extracting a few more of the building blocks from ttm_bo_vm, so that the driver's fault handler becomes roughly: 1. bo_reserve 2. bo_validate to make sure it's in the right spot, driver would control that. E.g. on i915 pwrite we first try the gtt without evicting, and then fall back to other mappings, maybe some driver wants to have that kind of fine-grained control too. 3. top half of ttm fault handler, up to but excluding ttm_tt_populate 4. again back in driver code, filling out all the tt itself (so keeping the tt structures probably good idea) 5. bottom half of ttm fault handler with all the pte insert code and prefaulting and all that 6. bo_unreserve > If the driver has no special cpu-mapping requirements, it should be > perfectly legal for it to not provide any bind() or unbind() functionality. In general I think separating the tt stuff from the placement stuff sounds like a very good idea. That should also allow us to share some vm/vma handling for per-process tt and all that, since doing that right (and from reading too many drivers amdgpu's code seems like a very nice template with the dma_resv in the vm for overall tracking, allowing O(1) execbuf and fun things like that) isn't that simple. And not all drivers that want these vm handling helpers might want ttm (thinking especially about soc stuff here). -Daniel > > /Thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dri-devel mailing list > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
