On 18/04/16 12:37, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:28:43PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 18/04/16 11:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:15:07AM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
With the new i915_gem_obj_pin_map() interface, it makes sense to keep
GuC objects (which are always pinned in memory and in the GGTT anyway)
mapped into kernel address space, rather than mapping and unmapping them
on each access.
This preliminary patch sets up the pin-and-map for all GuC-specific
objects, and updates the various setup/shutdown functions to use these
long-term mappings rather than doing their own kmap_atomic() calls.
v2:
Invent & use accessor function i915_object_mapped_address() rather
than accessing obj->mapping directly (Tvrtko Ursulin)
Use IS_ERR() rather than checking for NULL (Tvrtko Ursulin)
Added big comment about struct i915_guc_client & usage of the GEM
object that it describes
Cc: <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 12 ++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 38 +++++++++++-------------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 85102ad..439f149 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -3025,6 +3025,18 @@ static inline void i915_gem_object_unpin_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
void *__must_check i915_gem_object_pin_map(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
/**
+ * i915_object_mapped_address - address at which a GEM object is mapped
+ * @obj - the object (presumably already mapped into kernel address space)
+ *
+ * Returns the address at which an object has been mapped by a call to
+ * i915_gem_object_pin_map() above, or NULL if not currently mapped and pinned
+ */
+static inline void *i915_object_mapped_address(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+{
+ return obj->pages_pin_count == 0 ? NULL : obj->mapping;
+}
No.
The kernel address at which an object is pinned is just as much a
property of the object as its GGTT address, so should have a similar
function for retrieving it.
An object doesn't have a GGTT, a vma does. The object has vma. To use
the vma, you must pin it.
Well you obviously have a very different usage model in mind. The GuC
object lifecycle is:
guc_obj::create()
{
allocate
get-pages-into-RAM
pin-pages-in-RAM
pin-to-gtt
kmap
}
~guc_obj()
{
undo all the above
}
guc_obj::do_stuff()
{
addr = self.mapped_address()
... // use *addr
}
where all the code relies on the constructor having set up all mappings
once and for all; whereas it looks like you're thinking:
do_stuff(gem_obj)
{
addr = pin-and-map(gem_obj);
... // use *addr
unpin-and-map(gem_obj)
}
where each user of a mapping doesn't know about any others that might
exist, and therefore has to manage pincounting.
This local-knowledge-only model might be more natural if the function
were called something like i915_gem_object_mapping_create() and returned
an blob representing a binding between a GEM object and an address space
-- in other words, a VMA where the "address space" would be "kernel"
rather than GGTT or PPGTT (and the unmap function would take the
returned blob, not the GEM object, as the thing-to-be-unmade). Then we
could have partial mappings, and mappings with different properties
(e.g. caching) coexisting.
But the current pin-and-map implements *the* mapping as a singleton
property of a GEM object, so it looks far more natural to set it up once
and then expect to read its unchanged value at any time thereafter,
until the mapping is finally destroyed along with the object.
The pages_pin_count check is there because once that goes to zero,
the object doesn't logically /have/ a memory address, even if
'mapping' is still set.
Or was it just the name you objected to?
Name and function. obj->mapping is tied into the shinker which can and
will run at any time, stealing all locks. Using obj->mapping which
holding an actual page reference for yourself is broken.
All GuC objects are permanently pinned in RAM and GGTT, and hence immune
to the shrinker. If the shrinker does touch them, the GuC will break.
@@ -649,6 +639,9 @@ static void gem_release_guc_obj(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
if (i915_gem_obj_is_pinned(obj))
i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(obj);
+ if (i915_object_mapped_address(obj))
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_map(obj);
Eh? If you aren't tracking your pin, you can't just randomly free
someone elses.
The GuC code exclusively owns this object, so it can't be "someone
else's". The pages_pin count here will always be 1 (at present).
This was to allow for the possibility that we already chose to
release the pin-and-map while leaving the object in the GGTT, in
which case the pages_pin_count will be 0. (We don't do this, at
present, but see below).
That is bad justification for adding unsafe code.
NOT unsafe, because the GuC code holds the only reference to these
*private* objects. As I said, no code outside this file will ever access
these objects. And the code above is the destructor, so it would be a
really bad idea for anyone else to have a pin-and-mapping of the object
at this point.
drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
}
@@ -729,6 +722,8 @@ static struct i915_guc_client *guc_client_alloc(struct drm_device *dev,
goto err;
client->client_obj = obj;
+ client->client_base = i915_object_mapped_address(obj);
+ WARN_ON(!client->client_base);
client->wq_offset = GUC_DB_SIZE;
client->wq_size = GUC_WQ_SIZE;
@@ -841,7 +836,6 @@ static void guc_create_ads(struct intel_guc *guc)
struct guc_policies *policies;
struct guc_mmio_reg_state *reg_state;
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
- struct page *page;
u32 size;
/* The ads obj includes the struct itself and buffers passed to GuC */
@@ -857,9 +851,7 @@ static void guc_create_ads(struct intel_guc *guc)
guc->ads_obj = obj;
}
-
- page = i915_gem_object_get_page(obj, 0);
- ads = kmap(page);
+ ads = i915_object_mapped_address(obj);
You need to explicitly aknowlege that you are using the memory tracked
by the object otherwise it *will* be removed by the shrinker.
So what is wrong with using i915_gem_object_pin_map()?
-Chris
The object is pinned-and-mapped just once, when it's created, and
kept that way until it's destroyed. Calling pin-and-map here would
give it a pin count of two, which would be redundant, and require us
to unpin-and-map it again at the end of the function - which just
seems a waste of time.
Considering the alternative is an unsound API. Just do it, or pass
around the mapping in a local you have already pinned.
-Chris
No, I've decided just not to use the pin-and-map API at all. We really
only need direct access to the shared doorbell/process descriptor page,
so we can just kmap the single page instead. This is more economical in
use of address space, and simpler to keep away from the shrinker.
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
