On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 05:44:07PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > Am 24.11.20 um 17:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > On 11/24/20 2:41 AM, Christian König wrote: > > > Am 23.11.20 um 22:08 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > > > > > On 11/23/20 3:41 PM, Christian König wrote: > > > > > Am 23.11.20 um 21:38 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/23/20 3:20 PM, Christian König wrote: > > > > > > > Am 23.11.20 um 21:05 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/25/20 5:42 AM, Christian König wrote: > > > > > > > > > Am 21.11.20 um 06:21 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: > > > > > > > > > > It's needed to drop iommu backed pages on device unplug > > > > > > > > > > before device's IOMMU group is released. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be cleaner if we could do the whole > > > > > > > > > handling in TTM. I also need to double check > > > > > > > > > what you are doing with this function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check patch "drm/amdgpu: Register IOMMU topology > > > > > > > > notifier per device." to see > > > > > > > > how i use it. I don't see why this should go > > > > > > > > into TTM mid-layer - the stuff I do inside > > > > > > > > is vendor specific and also I don't think TTM is > > > > > > > > explicitly aware of IOMMU ? > > > > > > > > Do you mean you prefer the IOMMU notifier to be > > > > > > > > registered from within TTM > > > > > > > > and then use a hook to call into vendor specific handler ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that is really vendor specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I meant is to have a function like > > > > > > > ttm_resource_manager_evict_all() which you only need > > > > > > > to call and all tt objects are unpopulated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So instead of this BO list i create and later iterate in > > > > > > amdgpu from the IOMMU patch you just want to do it > > > > > > within > > > > > > TTM with a single function ? Makes much more sense. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, exactly. > > > > > > > > > > The list_empty() checks we have in TTM for the LRU are > > > > > actually not the best idea, we should now check the > > > > > pin_count instead. This way we could also have a list of the > > > > > pinned BOs in TTM. > > > > > > > > > > > > So from my IOMMU topology handler I will iterate the TTM LRU for > > > > the unpinned BOs and this new function for the pinned ones ? > > > > It's probably a good idea to combine both iterations into this > > > > new function to cover all the BOs allocated on the device. > > > > > > Yes, that's what I had in my mind as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW: Have you thought about what happens when we unpopulate > > > > > a BO while we still try to use a kernel mapping for it? That > > > > > could have unforeseen consequences. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you asking what happens to kmap or vmap style mapped CPU > > > > accesses once we drop all the DMA backing pages for a particular > > > > BO ? Because for user mappings > > > > (mmap) we took care of this with dummy page reroute but indeed > > > > nothing was done for in kernel CPU mappings. > > > > > > Yes exactly that. > > > > > > In other words what happens if we free the ring buffer while the > > > kernel still writes to it? > > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > While we can't control user application accesses to the mapped buffers > > explicitly and hence we use page fault rerouting > > I am thinking that in this case we may be able to sprinkle > > drm_dev_enter/exit in any such sensitive place were we might > > CPU access a DMA buffer from the kernel ? > > Yes, I fear we are going to need that. Uh ... problem is that dma_buf_vmap are usually permanent things. Maybe we could stuff this into begin/end_cpu_access (but only for the kernel, so a bit tricky)? btw the other issue with dma-buf (and even worse with dma_fence) is refcounting of the underlying drm_device. I'd expect that all your callbacks go boom if the dma_buf outlives your drm_device. That part isn't yet solved in your series here. -Daniel > > > Things like CPU page table updates, ring buffer accesses and FW memcpy ? > > Is there other places ? > > Puh, good question. I have no idea. > > > Another point is that at this point the driver shouldn't access any such > > buffers as we are at the process finishing the device. > > AFAIK there is no page fault mechanism for kernel mappings so I don't > > think there is anything else to do ? > > Well there is a page fault handler for kernel mappings, but that one just > prints the stack trace into the system log and calls BUG(); :) > > Long story short we need to avoid any access to released pages after unplug. > No matter if it's from the kernel or userspace. > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Andrey > -- 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
