Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] drm/i915/ttm Add a generic TTM memcpy move for page-based iomem

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 18.05.21 um 14:52 schrieb Thomas Hellström:

On 5/18/21 2:09 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 18.05.21 um 14:04 schrieb Thomas Hellström:

On 5/18/21 1:55 PM, Christian König wrote:


Am 18.05.21 um 10:26 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The internal ttm_bo_util memcpy uses vmap functionality, and while it
probably might be possible to use it for copying in- and out of
sglist represented io memory, using io_mem_reserve() / io_mem_free()
callbacks, that would cause problems with fault().
Instead, implement a method mapping page-by-page using kmap_local()
semantics. As an additional benefit we then avoid the occasional global TLB flushes of vmap() and consuming vmap space, elimination of a critical point of failure and with a slight change of semantics we could also push the memcpy out async for testing and async driver develpment purposes. Pushing out async can be done since there is no memory allocation going on
that could violate the dma_fence lockdep rules.

For copies from iomem, use the WC prefetching memcpy variant for
additional speed.

Note that drivers that don't want to use struct io_mapping but relies on
memremap functionality, and that don't want to use scatterlists for
VRAM may well define specialized (hopefully reusable) iterators for their
particular environment.

In general yes please since I have that as TODO for TTM for a very long time.

But I would prefer to fix the implementation in TTM instead and give it proper cursor handling.

Amdgpu is also using page based iomem and we are having similar workarounds in place there as well.

I think it makes sense to unify this inside TTM and remove the old memcpy util function when done.

Regards,
Christian.

Christian,

I was thinking when we replace the bo.mem with a pointer (and perhaps have a driver callback to allocate the bo->mem, we could perhaps embed a struct ttm_kmap_iter and use it for all mapping in one way or another). That would mean perhaps land this is i915 now and sort out the unification once the struct ttm_resource, struct ttm_buffer_object separation has landed?

That stuff is ready, reviewed and I'm just waiting for some amdgpu changes to land in drm-misc-next to push it.

But yes in general an iterator for the resource object sounds like the right plan to me as well.

Christian.

OK, so then are you OK with landing this in i915 for now? That would also ofc mean the export you NAK'd but strictly for this memcpy use until we merge it with TTM?

Well you can of course prototype that in i915, but I really don't want to export the TT functions upstream.

Can we cleanly move that functionality into TTM instead?

Christian.



/Thomas



/Thomas




_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux