Hi Am 24.11.20 um 14:36 schrieb Christian König:
Am 24.11.20 um 13:15 schrieb Thomas Zimmermann:[SNIP]First I wanted to put this into drm_gem_ttm_vmap/vunmap(), but then wondered why ttm_bo_vmap() doe not acquire the lock internally? I'd expect that vmap/vunmap are close together and do not overlap for the same BO.We have use cases like the following during command submission: 1. lock 2. map3. copy parts of the BO content somewhere else or patch it with additional information4. unmap 5. submit BO to the hardware 6. add hardware fence to the BO to make sure it doesn't move 7. unlockThat use case won't be possible with vmap/vunmap if we move the lock/unlock into it and I hope to replace the kmap/kunmap functions with them in the near term.Otherwise, acquiring the reservation lock would require another ref-counting variable or per-driver code.Hui, why that? Just put this into drm_gem_ttm_vmap/vunmap() helper as you initially planned.Given your example above, step one would acquire the lock, and step two would also acquire the lock as part of the vmap implementation. Wouldn't this fail (At least during unmap or unlock steps) ?Oh, so you want to nest them? No, that is a rather bad no-go.I don't want to nest/overlap them. My question was whether that would be required. Apparently not.While the console's BO is being set for scanout, it's protected from movement via the pin/unpin implementation, right?Yes, correct.The driver does not acquire the resv lock for longer periods. I'm asking because this would prevent any console-buffer updates while the console is being displayed.Correct as well, we only hold the lock for things like command submission, pinning, unpinning etc etc....
Thanks for answering my questions.
You need to make sure that the lock is only taken from the FB path which wants to vmap the object.Why don't you lock the GEM object from the caller in the generic FB implementation?With the current blitter code, it breaks abstraction. if vmap/vunmap hold the lock implicitly, things would be easier.Do you have a link to the code?
It's the damage blitter in the fbdev code. [1] While it flushes the shadow buffer into the BO, the BO has to be kept in place. I already changed it to lock struct drm_fb_helper.lock, but I don't think this is enough. TTM could still evict the BO concurrently.
There's no recursion taking place, so I guess the reservation lock could be acquired/release in drm_client_buffer_vmap/vunmap(), or a separate pair of DRM client functions could do the locking.
Best regards Thomas[1] https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm-tip/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fb_helper.c?id=ac60f3f3090115d21f028bffa2dcfb67f695c4f2#n394
Please note that the reservation lock you need to take here is part of the GEM object.Usually we design things in the way that the code needs to take a lock which protects an object, then do some operations with the object and then release the lock again.Having in the lock inside the operation can be done as well, but returning with it is kind of unusual design.Sorry for the noob questions. I'm still trying to understand the implications of acquiring these locks.Well this is the reservation lock of the GEM object we are talking about here. We need to take that for a couple of different operations, vmap/vunmap doesn't sound like a special case to me.Regards, Christian.Best regards Thomas_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- Thomas Zimmermann Graphics Driver Developer SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
OpenPGP_0x680DC11D530B7A23.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
