25.10.2019 14:48, Thierry Reding пишет:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:46:58PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 24.10.2019 20:28, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 07:31:19PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 24.10.2019 19:21, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>> 24.10.2019 19:09, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>>> 24.10.2019 18:57, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>>>> 24.10.2019 18:56, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:23PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 24.10.2019 16:50, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 04:28:41PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 24.10.2019 14:58, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 08:37:42PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should should fire up on the DRM's driver module re-loader because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there won't be enough available domains on older Tegra SoCs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 0c407de5ed1a ("drm/tegra: Refactor IOMMU attach/detach")
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.h | 3 ++-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr2d.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/gr3d.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I understand what this is trying to do, but the commit message
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not help at all. So what's really going on here is that we need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> detach the device from the group regardless of whether we're sharing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> group or not, just like we attach groups to the shared domain whether
>>>>>>>>>>>> they share the same group or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the commit's message could be improved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But in that case, I wonder if it's even worth splitting groups the way
>>>>>>>>>>>> we are right now. Wouldn't it be better to just put all the devices into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same group and be done with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The current code gives me headaches every time I read it, so if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>> just make it so that all the devices under the DRM device share the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> group, this would become a lot easier to deal with. I'm not really
>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced that it makes much sense to keep them on separate domains,
>>>>>>>>>>>> especially given the constraints on the number of domains available on
>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier Tegra devices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that sharing a group will also make it much easier for these to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> the DMA API if it is backed by an IOMMU.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably I'm blanking on everything about IOMMU now.. could you please
>>>>>>>>>>> remind me what "IOMMU group" is?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't it that each IOMMU group relates to the HW ID (SWGROUP)? But then
>>>>>>>>>>> each display controller has its own SWGROUP.. and thus that sharing just
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't make any sense, hm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IOMMU groups are not directly related to SWGROUPs. But by default the
>>>>>>>>>> IOMMU framework will share a domain between members of the same IOMMU
>>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, I re-figured out that again. The memory controller drivers are
>>>>>>>>> defining a single "IOMMU group" for both of the display controllers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like that's really what we want here, so that when we do
>>>>>>>>>> use the DMA API, all the devices part of the DRM device get attached to
>>>>>>>>>> the same IOMMU domain, yet if we don't want to use the DMA API we only
>>>>>>>>>> need to detach the one group from the backing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it should be okay to put all DRM devices into the same group, like
>>>>>>>>> it is done now for the displays. It also should resolve problem with the
>>>>>>>>> domains shortage on T30 since now there are maximum 3 domains in use:
>>>>>>>>> host1x, drm and vde.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I actually just checked that the original problem still exists
>>>>>>>>> and this change solves it as well:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra30.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra30.c
>>>>>>>>> index 5a0f6e0a1643..e71096498436 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra30.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra30.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1021,6 +1021,9 @@ static const struct tegra_smmu_swgroup
>>>>>>>>> tegra30_swgroups[] = {
>>>>>>>>> static const unsigned int tegra30_group_display[] = {
>>>>>>>>> TEGRA_SWGROUP_DC,
>>>>>>>>> TEGRA_SWGROUP_DCB,
>>>>>>>>> + TEGRA_SWGROUP_G2,
>>>>>>>>> + TEGRA_SWGROUP_NV,
>>>>>>>>> + TEGRA_SWGROUP_NV2,
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> static const struct tegra_smmu_group_soc tegra30_groups[] = {
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please let me know whether you're going to make a patch or if I should
>>>>>>>>> do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been testing with a similar change and couldn't find any
>>>>>>>> regressions. I've also made the same modifications for Tegra114 and
>>>>>>>> Tegra124.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying that none of these patches are needed anymore? Or do we
>>>>>>>> still need a patch to fix detaching? I'm thinking that maybe we can
>>>>>>>> drastrically simplify the detachment now by dropping the shared
>>>>>>>> parameter altogether.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me draft a patch and send out the whole set for testing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems it's still not ideal because I noticed this in KMSG:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ 0.703185] Failed to attached device 54200000.dc to IOMMU_mapping
>>>>>>> [ 0.710404] Failed to attached device 54240000.dc to IOMMU_mapping
>>>>>>> [ 0.719347] Failed to attached device 54140000.gr2d to IOMMU_mapping
>>>>>>> [ 0.719569] Failed to attached device 54180000.gr3d to IOMMU_mapping
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which comes from the implicit IOMMU backing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the error comes from here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4-rc2/source/drivers/iommu/iommu.c#L1655
>>>>>
>>>>> So the detaching still should be needed, but at the moment the ARM32
>>>>> DMA-mapping code is simply not suitable for the case of having multiple
>>>>> devices in the same group. I'm wondering whether there are any real
>>>>> users for the implicit IOMMU backing on ARM32 at all :/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the "Failed to attached device 54200000.dc" was always in the
>>>> log (I rarely testing the default multi-platform config), it's just the
>>>> message is a pr_warn that I wasn't paying attention because it is
>>>> colored like pr_info in dmesg :)
>>>
>>> Yeah, so the above isn't a complete solution. In order to actually use
>>> the DMA API backed by an IOMMU, some additional patches are needed. I
>>> have all of those in a local tree and I've already sent out a couple of
>>> them. It's taking a while because they all need to be applied in small
>>> iterations to make sure things don't break midway.
>>
>> I'd like to have an immediate interim solution.
>
> To clarify: when I said "isn't a complete solution", what I meant is
> that it's not a complete solution to make the implicit IOMMU backing
> work with the DMA API. That's what I've got a patch set ready for.
Okay.
> But you said earlier that this change (i.e. putting all DRM devices into
> the same IOMMU group) fixes the issue that you were seeing, right? So
> that would be an immediate, interim solution, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would.
