On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 11:39:45AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Jonathan Marek <jonathan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/14/20 1:46 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 8:24 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 10:17:12AM -0500, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> > >>> +void msm_gem_sync_cache(struct drm_gem_object *obj, uint32_t flags,
> > >>> + size_t range_start, size_t range_end)
> > >>> +{
> > >>> + struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj = to_msm_bo(obj);
> > >>> + struct device *dev = msm_obj->base.dev->dev;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + /* exit early if get_pages() hasn't been called yet */
> > >>> + if (!msm_obj->pages)
> > >>> + return;
> > >>> +
> > >>> + /* TODO: sync only the specified range */
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (flags & MSM_GEM_SYNC_FOR_DEVICE) {
> > >>> + dma_sync_sg_for_device(dev, msm_obj->sgt->sgl,
> > >>> + msm_obj->sgt->nents, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
> > >>> + }
> > >>> +
> > >>> + if (flags & MSM_GEM_SYNC_FOR_CPU) {
> > >>> + dma_sync_sg_for_cpu(dev, msm_obj->sgt->sgl,
> > >>> + msm_obj->sgt->nents, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> > >>> + }
> > >>
> > >> Splitting this helper from the only caller is rather strange, epecially
> > >> with the two unused arguments. And I think the way this is specified
> > >> to take a range, but ignoring it is actively dangerous. User space will
> > >> rely on it syncing everything sooner or later and then you are stuck.
> > >> So just define a sync all primitive for now, and if you really need a
> > >> range sync and have actually implemented it add a new ioctl for that.
> > >
> > > We do already have a split of ioctl "layer" which enforces valid ioctl
> > > params, etc, and gem (or other) module code which is called by the
> > > ioctl func. So I think it is fine to keep this split here. (Also, I
> > > think at some point there will be a uring type of ioctl alternative
> > > which would re-use the same gem func.)
> > >
> > > But I do agree that the range should be respected or added later..
> > > drm_ioctl() dispatch is well prepared for extending ioctls.
> > >
> > > And I assume there should be some validation that the range is aligned
> > > to cache-line? Or can we flush a partial cache line?
> > >
> >
> > The range is intended to be "sync at least this range", so that
> > userspace doesn't have to worry about details like that.
> >
>
> I don't think userspace can *not* worry about details like that.
> Consider a case where the cpu and gpu are simultaneously accessing
> different parts of a buffer (for ex, sub-allocation). There needs to
> be cache-line separation between the two.
There is at least one compute conformance test that I can think of that does
exactly this.
Jordan
> BR,
> -R
> _______________________________________________
> Freedreno mailing list
> Freedreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
