On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:13:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 03:47:43PM +0900, Inki Dae wrote: > > 2013/5/15 Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Rob Clark [mailto:robdclark@xxxxxxxxx] > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:39 PM > > > >> To: Inki Dae > > > >> Cc: linux-fbdev; DRI mailing list; Kyungmin Park; myungjoo.ham; YoungJun > > > >> Cho; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> Subject: Re: Introduce a new helper framework for buffer synchronization > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> well, for cache management, I think it is a better idea.. I didn't > > > >> >> really catch that this was the motivation from the initial patch, but > > > >> >> maybe I read it too quickly. But cache can be decoupled from > > > >> >> synchronization, because CPU access is not asynchronous. For > > > >> >> userspace/CPU access to buffer, you should: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 1) wait for buffer > > > >> >> 2) prepare-access > > > >> >> 3) ... do whatever cpu access to buffer ... > > > >> >> 4) finish-access > > > >> >> 5) submit buffer for new dma-operation > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > For data flow from CPU to DMA device, > > > >> > 1) wait for buffer > > > >> > 2) prepare-access (dma_buf_begin_cpu_access) > > > >> > 3) cpu access to buffer > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > For data flow from DMA device to CPU > > > >> > 1) wait for buffer > > > >> > > > >> Right, but CPU access isn't asynchronous (from the point of view of > > > >> the CPU), so there isn't really any wait step at this point. And if > > > >> you do want the CPU to be able to signal a fence from userspace for > > > >> some reason, you probably what something file/fd based so the > > > >> refcnting/cleanup when process dies doesn't leave some pending DMA > > > >> action wedged. But I don't really see the point of that complexity > > > >> when the CPU access isn't asynchronous in the first place. > > > >> > > > > > > > > There was my missing comments, please see the below sequence. > > > > > > > > For data flow from CPU to DMA device and then from DMA device to CPU, > > > > 1) wait for buffer <- at user side - ioctl(fd, DMA_BUF_GET_FENCE, ...) > > > > - including prepare-access (dma_buf_begin_cpu_access) > > > > 2) cpu access to buffer > > > > 3) wait for buffer <- at device driver > > > > - but CPU is already accessing the buffer so blocked. > > > > 4) signal <- at user side - ioctl(fd, DMA_BUF_PUT_FENCE, ...) > > > > 5) the thread, blocked at 3), is waked up by 4). > > > > - and then finish-access (dma_buf_end_cpu_access) > > > > > > right, I understand you can have background threads, etc, in > > > userspace. But there are already plenty of synchronization primitives > > > that can be used for cpu->cpu synchronization, either within the same > > > process or between multiple processes. For cpu access, even if it is > > > handled by background threads/processes, I think it is better to use > > > the traditional pthreads or unix synchronization primitives. They > > > have existed forever, they are well tested, and they work. > > > > > > So while it seems nice and orthogonal/clean to couple cache and > > > synchronization and handle dma->cpu and cpu->cpu and cpu->dma in the > > > same generic way, but I think in practice we have to make things more > > > complex than they otherwise need to be to do this. Otherwise I think > > > we'll be having problems with badly behaved or crashing userspace. > > > > > > > > Right, this is very important. I think it's not esay to solve this > > issue. Aand at least for ARM based embedded system, such feature is useful > > to us; coupling cache operation and buffer synchronization. I'd like to > > collect other opinions and advices to solve this issue. > > Maybe we have a bit a misunderstanding here. The kernel really should take > care of sync and cache coherency, and I agree that with the current > dma_buf code (and the proposed fences) that part is still a bit hazy. But > the kernel should not allow userspace to block access to a buffer until > userspace is done. It should only sync with any oustanding fences and > flush buffers before that userspace access happens. > > Then the kernel would again flush caches on the next dma access (which > hopefully is only started once userspace completed access). Atm this isn't > possible in an efficient way since the dma_buf api only exposes map/unmap > attachment and not a function to just sync an existing mapping like > dma_sync_single_for_device. I guess we should add a > dma_buf_sync_attachment interface for that - we already have range-based > cpu sync support with the begin/end_cpu_access interfaces. I think my mail here was a bit unclear, so let me try to rephrase. Re-reading through part of this discussion I think you raise some good shortcomings of the current dma_buf interfaces and the proposed fence patches. But I think we should address the individual pieces bit-by-bit. On a quick survey I see a few parts to what you're trying to solve: - More efficient cache coherency management. I think we already have all required interfaces for efficient cpu-side access with begin/end_cpu_access. So I think we only need a device-side dma sync mechanism to be able to flush cpu caches after userspace/cpu access has completed (before the next dma op). - More efficient mmap handling. The current dma_buf mmap support is explicitly designed as something simply, but probably dead-slow for last-resort fallback ops. I'm not sure whether we should fix this up and extend with special ioctls. But the current coherency interface should be good enough for you to write an efficient private mmap implementation for exynos drm. - Integration of fence syncing into dma_buf. Imo we should have a per-attachment mode which decides whether map/unmap (and the new sync) should wait for fences or whether the driver takes care of syncing through the new fence framework itself (for direct hw sync). Imo cpu access should also have such a flag. I guess in both cases we should sync by default. - cpu/cpu sync additions to dma_buf. Like I've said, I'm not sold at all on this idea. I think it would be best if we try to fix up all the other current shortcomings first though and then take a fresh look at this issue here. Have I missed or misunderstood something? Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
