On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:27:22AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 22/06/2022 17:44, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 04:57:17PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 22/06/2022 16:12, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 09:10:07AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 22/06/2022 04:56, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
VM_BIND and related uapi definitions
v2: Reduce the scope to simple Mesa use case.
v3: Expand VM_UNBIND documentation and add
I915_GEM_VM_BIND/UNBIND_FENCE_VALID
and I915_GEM_VM_BIND_TLB_FLUSH flags.
Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura
<niranjana.vishwanathapura@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h | 243
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 243 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fa23b2d7ec6f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/rfc/i915_vm_bind.h
@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT */
+/*
+ * Copyright © 2022 Intel Corporation
+ */
+
+/**
+ * DOC: I915_PARAM_HAS_VM_BIND
+ *
+ * VM_BIND feature availability.
+ * See typedef drm_i915_getparam_t param.
+ */
+#define I915_PARAM_HAS_VM_BIND 57
+
+/**
+ * DOC: I915_VM_CREATE_FLAGS_USE_VM_BIND
+ *
+ * Flag to opt-in for VM_BIND mode of binding during VM creation.
+ * See struct drm_i915_gem_vm_control flags.
+ *
+ * The older execbuf2 ioctl will not support VM_BIND mode
of operation.
+ * For VM_BIND mode, we have new execbuf3 ioctl which will
not accept any
+ * execlist (See struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer3 for more details).
+ *
+ */
+#define I915_VM_CREATE_FLAGS_USE_VM_BIND (1 << 0)
+
+/* VM_BIND related ioctls */
+#define DRM_I915_GEM_VM_BIND 0x3d
+#define DRM_I915_GEM_VM_UNBIND 0x3e
+#define DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER3 0x3f
+
+#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_VM_BIND
DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_VM_BIND, struct
drm_i915_gem_vm_bind)
+#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_VM_UNBIND
DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_VM_UNBIND, struct
drm_i915_gem_vm_bind)
+#define DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER3
DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER3, struct
drm_i915_gem_execbuffer3)
+
+/**
+ * struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind_fence - Bind/unbind
completion notification.
+ *
+ * A timeline out fence for vm_bind/unbind completion notification.
+ */
+struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind_fence {
+ /** @handle: User's handle for a drm_syncobj to signal. */
+ __u32 handle;
+
+ /** @rsvd: Reserved, MBZ */
+ __u32 rsvd;
+
+ /**
+ * @value: A point in the timeline.
+ * Value must be 0 for a binary drm_syncobj. A Value of 0 for a
+ * timeline drm_syncobj is invalid as it turns a
drm_syncobj into a
+ * binary one.
+ */
+ __u64 value;
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind - VA to object mapping to bind.
+ *
+ * This structure is passed to VM_BIND ioctl and specifies
the mapping of GPU
+ * virtual address (VA) range to the section of an object
that should be bound
+ * in the device page table of the specified address space (VM).
+ * The VA range specified must be unique (ie., not
currently bound) and can
+ * be mapped to whole object or a section of the object
(partial binding).
+ * Multiple VA mappings can be created to the same section
of the object
+ * (aliasing).
+ *
+ * The @start, @offset and @length should be 4K page
aligned. However the DG2
+ * and XEHPSDV has 64K page size for device local-memory
and has compact page
+ * table. On those platforms, for binding device
local-memory objects, the
+ * @start should be 2M aligned, @offset and @length should
be 64K aligned.
Should some error codes be documented and has the ability to
programmatically probe the alignment restrictions been
considered?
Currently what we have internally is that -EINVAL is returned if
the sart, offset
and length are not aligned. If the specified mapping already
exits, we return
-EEXIST. If there are conflicts in the VA range and VA range
can't be reserved,
then -ENOSPC is returned. I can add this documentation here. But
I am worried
that there will be more suggestions/feedback about error codes
while reviewing
the code patch series, and we have to revisit it again.
I'd still suggest documenting those three. It makes sense to
explain to userspace what behaviour they will see if they get it
wrong.
Ok.
+ * Also, on those platforms, it is not allowed to bind an
device local-memory
+ * object and a system memory object in a single 2M section
of VA range.
Text should be clear whether "not allowed" means there will be
an error returned, or it will appear to work but bad things
will happen.
Yah, error returned, will fix.
+ */
+struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind {
+ /** @vm_id: VM (address space) id to bind */
+ __u32 vm_id;
+
+ /** @handle: Object handle */
+ __u32 handle;
+
+ /** @start: Virtual Address start to bind */
+ __u64 start;
+
+ /** @offset: Offset in object to bind */
+ __u64 offset;
+
+ /** @length: Length of mapping to bind */
+ __u64 length;
+
+ /**
+ * @flags: Supported flags are:
+ *
+ * I915_GEM_VM_BIND_FENCE_VALID:
+ * @fence is valid, needs bind completion notification.
+ *
+ * I915_GEM_VM_BIND_READONLY:
+ * Mapping is read-only.
+ *
+ * I915_GEM_VM_BIND_CAPTURE:
+ * Capture this mapping in the dump upon GPU error.
+ *
+ * I915_GEM_VM_BIND_TLB_FLUSH:
+ * Flush the TLB for the specified range after bind completion.
+ */
+ __u64 flags;
+#define I915_GEM_VM_BIND_FENCE_VALID (1 << 0)
+#define I915_GEM_VM_BIND_READONLY (1 << 1)
+#define I915_GEM_VM_BIND_CAPTURE (1 << 2)
+#define I915_GEM_VM_BIND_TLB_FLUSH (1 << 2)
What is the use case for allowing any random user to play with
(global) TLB flushing?
I heard it from Daniel on intel-gfx, apparently it is a Mesa
requirement.
Okay I think that one needs clarifying.
After chatting with Jason, I think we can remove it for now and
we can revisit it later if Mesa thinks it is required.
IRC or some other thread?
#intel-gfx
Niranjana
+
+ /** @fence: Timeline fence for bind completion signaling */
+ struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind_fence fence;
As agreed the other day - please document in the main
kerneldoc section that all (un)binds are executed
asynchronously and out of order.
I have added it in the latest revision of .rst file.
Right, but I'd say to mention it in the uapi docs.
Ok
+
+ /** @extensions: 0-terminated chain of extensions */
+ __u64 extensions;
+};
+
+/**
+ * struct drm_i915_gem_vm_unbind - VA to object mapping to unbind.
+ *
+ * This structure is passed to VM_UNBIND ioctl and
specifies the GPU virtual
+ * address (VA) range that should be unbound from the
device page table of the
+ * specified address space (VM). The specified VA range
must match one of the
+ * mappings created with the VM_BIND ioctl. TLB is flushed
upon unbind
+ * completion. The unbind operation will force unbind the specified
Do we want to provide TLB flushing guarantees here and why?
(As opposed to leaving them for implementation details.) If
there is no implied order in either binds/unbinds, or between
the two intermixed, then what is the point of guaranteeing a
TLB flush on unbind completion?
I think we ensure that tlb is flushed before signaling the out fence
of vm_unbind call, then user ensure corretness by staging submissions
or vm_bind calls after vm_unbind out fence signaling.
I don't see why is this required. Driver does not need to flush
immediately on unbind for correctness/security and neither for the
uapi contract. If there is no subsequent usage/bind then the flush
is pointless. And if the user re-binds to same VA range, against
an active VM, then perhaps the expectations need to be defined. Is
this supported or user error or what.
After a vm_unbind, UMD can re-bind to same VA range against an active VM.
Though I am not sue with Mesa usecase if that new mapping is required for
running GPU job or it will be for the next submission. But ensuring the
tlb flush upon unbind, KMD can ensure correctness.
Isn't that their problem? If they re-bind for submitting _new_ work
then they get the flush as part of batch buffer pre-amble.
Note that on platforms with selective TLB invalidation, it is not
as expensive as flushing the whole TLB. On platforms without selective
tlb invalidation, we can put some optimization later as mentioned
in the .rst file.
Also note that UMDs can vm_unbind a mapping while VM is active.
By flushing the tlb, we ensure there is no inadvertent access to
mapping that no longer exists. I can add this to documentation.
This one would surely be their problem. Kernel only needs to flush
when it decides to re-use the backing store.
To be clear, overall I have reservations about offering strong
guarantees about the TLB flushing behaviour at the level of these two
ioctls. If we don't need to offer them it would be good to not do it,
otherwise we limit ourselves on the implementation side and more
importantly add a global performance hit where majority of userspace
do not need this guarantee to start with.
I only don't fully remember how is that compute use case supposed to
work where new work keeps getting submitted against a running batch.
Am I missing something there?
range from
+ * device page table without waiting for any GPU job to
complete. It is UMDs
+ * responsibility to ensure the mapping is no longer in use
before calling
+ * VM_UNBIND.
+ *
+ * The @start and @length musy specify a unique mapping
bound with VM_BIND
+ * ioctl.
+ */
+struct drm_i915_gem_vm_unbind {
+ /** @vm_id: VM (address space) id to bind */
+ __u32 vm_id;
+
+ /** @rsvd: Reserved, MBZ */
+ __u32 rsvd;
+
+ /** @start: Virtual Address start to unbind */
+ __u64 start;
+
+ /** @length: Length of mapping to unbind */
+ __u64 length;
+
+ /**
+ * @flags: Supported flags are:
+ *
+ * I915_GEM_VM_UNBIND_FENCE_VALID:
+ * @fence is valid, needs unbind completion notification.
+ */
+ __u64 flags;
+#define I915_GEM_VM_UNBIND_FENCE_VALID (1 << 0)
+
+ /** @fence: Timeline fence for unbind completion signaling */
+ struct drm_i915_gem_vm_bind_fence fence;
I am not sure the simplified ioctl story is super coherent. If
everything is now fully async and out of order, but the input
fence has been dropped, then how is userspace supposed to
handle the address space? It will have to wait (in userspace)
for unbinds to complete before submitting subsequent binds
which use the same VA range.
Yah and Mesa appararently will be having the support to handle it.
Maybe that's passable, but then the fact execbuf3 has no input
fence suggests a userspace wait between it and binds. And I am
pretty sure historically those were always quite bad for
performance.
execbuf3 has the input fence through timline fence array support.
I think I confused the field in execbuf3 for for the output
fence.. So that part is fine, async binds chained with input fence
to execbuf3. Fire and forget for userspace.
Although I then don't understand why execbuf3 wouldn't support an
output fence? What mechanism is userspace supposed to use for
that? Export a fence from batch buffer BO? That would be an extra
ioctl so if we can avoid it why not?
execbuf3 supports out fence as well through timeline fence array.
Ah okay, I am uninformed in this topic, sorry.
Regards,
Tvrtko
