On 5/18/21 7:17 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 19:10 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/18/21 5:29 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 17:25 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/18/21 5:17 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 17:11 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/18/21 5:07 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 16:55 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This allows other drivers that may not setup the vma in the
same way
to use the ttm bo helpers.
Uff can you please explain why exactly you need that?
Providing the BO is not much of a problem, but having the BO at
different VMA offsets is really a no-go with TTM.
Christian.
The current i915 uapi is using different offsets for different
caching :/. We're currently working around that by using
ttm_bo_type_kernel (no TTM vma offset at all) and i915's offset.
Can you instead adjust the offset in the mmap callback like we do
for dma-buf?
Will have to take a look.
That's really a no-go what you describe here because it will mess
up reverse mapping lockup for buffer movement.
You mean the unmap_mapping_range() stuff? That's not a problem
since it's a NOP for kernel ttm buffers, and the i915 move() /
swap_notify() takes care of killing the ptes.
That design is a certain NAK from my side for upstreaming this.
PTE handling is the domain of TTM, drivers should never mess with
that directly.
Hmm. May I humbly suggest a different view on this:
I agree fully for ttm_bo_type_device bos but for ttm_bo_type_kernel,
TTM has no business whatsoever with user-space PTEs. That's really
why that bo type exists in the first place. But otoh one can of
course argue that then i915 has no business calling the TTM fault
helper for these bos.
Well the real question is why does i915 wants to expose kernel BOs to
userspace? As the name says only the kernel should be able to access
them.
I'd say "kernel" of course refers to how TTM handles them.
So for discrete we can probably do the right thing with
ttm_bo_type_device. What worries me a bit is when we get to older
hardware support because whatever we do is by definition going to be
ugly. At best we might be able to split the address space between
i915's mmos, and hand the rest to TTM, modifying offsets as you
suggest. That way a TTM call to unmap_mapping_range() would do the
right thing, I think.
Well we do all kind of nasty stuff with the offset in DMA-buf, KFD,
overlayfs etc. So adjusting the offset inside the kernel is already
well supported and used.
What I don't fully understand is your use case here? Can you briefly
describe that?
Do you use different bits of the offset to signal what caching
behavior you have? And then based on this adjust the pgprot_t in the vma?
Thanks,
Christian.
TBH I'm not completely sure about the history of this. I think the basic
idea is that you want to support different vmas with different caching
modes, so you never change the vma pgprot after mmap time, like TTM
does. Needless to say this only works with Intel processors on
integrated and the more I write about this the more I'm convinced that
we should perhaps not concern TTM with that at all.
/Thomas
/Thomas
Christian.
While we're in the process of killing that offset flexibility for
discrete, we can't do so for older hardware unfortunately.
/Thomas
Christian.
/Thomas
