On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:32:19AM -0800, Rob Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 7:38 AM Nicolas Dufresne <nicolas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Le jeudi 17 novembre 2022 à 13:10 +0100, Christian König a écrit : > > > > > DMA-Buf let's the exporter setup the DMA addresses the importer uses to > > > > > be able to directly decided where a certain operation should go. E.g. we > > > > > have cases where for example a P2P write doesn't even go to memory, but > > > > > rather a doorbell BAR to trigger another operation. Throwing in CPU > > > > > round trips for explicit ownership transfer completely breaks that > > > > > concept. > > > > It sounds like we should have a dma_dev_is_coherent_with_dev() which > > > > accepts two (or an array?) of devices and tells the caller whether the > > > > devices need explicit ownership transfer. > > > > > > No, exactly that's the concept I'm pushing back on very hard here. > > > > > > In other words explicit ownership transfer is not something we would > > > want as requirement in the framework, cause otherwise we break tons of > > > use cases which require concurrent access to the underlying buffer. > > > > I'm not pushing for this solution, but really felt the need to correct you here. > > I have quite some experience with ownership transfer mechanism, as this is how > > GStreamer framework works since 2000. Concurrent access is a really common use > > cases and it is quite well defined in that context. The bracketing system (in > > this case called map() unmap(), with flag stating the usage intention like reads > > and write) is combined the the refcount. The basic rules are simple: > > This is all CPU oriented, I think Christian is talking about the case > where ownership transfer happens without CPU involvement, such as via > GPU waiting on a fence Yeah for pure device2device handover the rule pretty much has to be that any coherency management that needs to be done must be done from the device side (flushing device side caches and stuff like that) only. But under the assumption that _all_ cpu side management has been done already before the first device access started. And then the map/unmap respectively begin/end_cpu_access can be used what it was meant for with cpu side invalidation/flushing and stuff like that, while having pretty clear handover/ownership rules and hopefully not doing no unecessary flushes. And all that while allowing device acces to be pipelined. Worst case the exporter has to insert some pipelined cache flushes as a dma_fence pipelined work of its own between the device access when moving from one device to the other. That last part sucks a bit right now, because we don't have any dma_buf_attachment method which does this syncing without recreating the mapping, but in reality this is solved by caching mappings in the exporter (well dma-buf layer) nowadays. True concurrent access like vk/compute expects is still a model that dma-buf needs to support on top, but that's a special case and pretty much needs hw that supports such concurrent access without explicit handover and fencing. Aside from some historical accidents and still a few warts, I do think dma-buf does support both of these models. Of course in the case of gpu/drm drivers, userspace must know whats possible and act accordingly, otherwise you just get to keep all the pieces. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
