On 07/11/2014 11:50 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 07/10/2014 09:58 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:25:57PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
page_to_phys() is not the correct way to obtain the DMA address of a
buffer on a non-PCI system. Use the DMA API functions for this, which
are portable and will allow us to use other DMA API functions for
buffer synchronization.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/device/base.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/device/base.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/device/base.c
index 18c8c7245b73..e4e9e64988fe 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/device/base.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/device/base.c
@@ -489,7 +489,10 @@ nv_device_map_page(struct nouveau_device *device,
struct page *page)
if (pci_dma_mapping_error(device->pdev, ret))
ret = 0;
} else {
- ret = page_to_phys(page);
+ ret = dma_map_page(&device->platformdev->dev, page, 0,
+ PAGE_SIZE, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
+ if (dma_mapping_error(&device->platformdev->dev, ret))
+ ret = 0;
}
return ret;
@@ -501,6 +504,9 @@ nv_device_unmap_page(struct nouveau_device *device,
dma_addr_t addr)
if (nv_device_is_pci(device))
pci_unmap_page(device->pdev, addr, PAGE_SIZE,
PCI_DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL);
pci_map/unmap alias to dma_unmap/map when called on the underlying struct
device embedded in pci_device (like for platform drivers). Dunno whether
it's worth to track a pointer to the struct device directly and always
call dma_unmap/map.
Isn't it (theoretically) possible to have a platform that does not use the
DMA API for its PCI implementation and thus requires the pci_* functions to
be called? I could not find such a case in -next, which suggests that all
PCI platforms have been converted to the DMA API already and that we could
indeed refactor this to always use the DMA functions.
But at the same time the way we use APIs should not be directed by their
implementation, but by their intent - and unless the PCI API has been
deprecated in some way (something I am not aware of), the rule is still that
you should use it on a PCI device.
Just drive-by comment since I'm interested in how you solve this - i915
has similar fun with buffer sharing and coherent and non-coherent
platforms. Although we don't have fun with pci and non-pci based
platforms.
Yeah, I am not familiar with i915 but it seems like we are on a similar boat
here (excepted ARM is more constrained as to its memory mappings). The
strategy in this series is, map buffers used by user-space cached and
explicitly synchronize them (since the ownership transition from user to GPU
is always clearly performed by syscalls), and use coherent mappings for
buffers used by the kernel which are accessed more randomly. This has solved
all our coherency issues and resulted in the best performance so far.
I wonder if we might want to use unsnooped cached mappings of pages on
non-ARM platforms also, to avoid the overhead of the cache snooping?
You might want to indeed, now that coherency is guaranteed by the sync
functions originally introduced by Lucas. The only issue I could see is
that they always invalidate the full buffer whereas bus snooping only
affects pages that are actually touched. Someone would need to try this
on a desktop machine and see how it affects performance.
I'd be all for it though, since it would also allow us to get rid of
this ungraceful nv_device_is_cpu_coherent() function and result in
simplifying nouveau_bo.c a bit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
