On Fri Mar 13, 2026 at 4:09 PM CET, Adrián Larumbe wrote:
> When an unmap or map operation that leads to a remap intersects with a
> GPU VA that spans over a repeated range, the newly spawned VAs must
> preserve the repeated property, ie, VA's range must be a multiple of
> gem.range, and also the VA's start address must be on a gem.range
> boundary. When this doesn't hold, disallow such operations and notify
> UM with an invalid argument error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrián Larumbe <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/drm/drm_gpuvm.h | 7 +++-
> 2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> index ca7445f767fc..80750119221d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> @@ -2462,6 +2462,65 @@ static int validate_map_request(struct drm_gpuvm
> *gpuvm,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int
> +validate_repeated_unmap_request(struct drm_gpuvm *gpuvm,
> + u64 req_addr, u64 req_end)
I think the name is misleading, this is called from both __drm_gpuvm_sm_map()
and __drm_gpuvm_sm_unmap().
> +{
> + struct drm_gpuva *first, *last, *va;
> + u64 multiple;
> +
> + if (!(gpuvm->flags & DRM_GPUVM_HAS_REPEAT_MAPS))
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Find the first and last VAs the map request intersects with */
> + first = last = NULL;
> + drm_gpuvm_for_each_va_range(va, gpuvm, req_addr, req_end) {
> + if (!first)
> + first = va;
> + last = va;
> + }
Can't this be covered with two calls to drm_gpuva_find_first()? I.e. for the
last you can call drm_gpuva_find_first(gpuvm, req_end - 1, 1), as you are only
interested if it spans across the req_end boundary.
This way this becomes O(log N) rather than O(N), where N can actually be very
large.
> +
> + if (!first)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (first->flags & DRM_GPUVA_REPEAT) {
> + u64 addr = first->va.addr;
> + u64 range = first->va.range;
> + u64 end = addr + range;
> +
> + drm_WARN_ON(gpuvm->drm, first->gem.repeat_range == 0);
How can this ever happen? Why do we need to check it here? If that's invalid
reject it when creating the VA instead.
> +
> + if (addr < req_addr) {
> + multiple = req_addr;
> + if (do_div(multiple, first->gem.repeat_range))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (end > req_end) {
> + multiple = req_end;
> + if (do_div(multiple, first->gem.repeat_range))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if ((first != last) && (last->flags & DRM_GPUVA_REPEAT)) {
> + u64 addr = last->va.addr;
> + u64 range = last->va.range;
> + u64 end = addr + range;
> +
> + drm_WARN_ON(last->vm->drm, last->gem.repeat_range == 0);
> +
> + if (end > req_end) {
> + multiple = req_end;
> + if (do_div(multiple, last->gem.repeat_range))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
