linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] drm/tegra: Implement dynamic channel allocation model

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:29:52 +0200
From:   Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        thierry.reding@...il.com, jonathanh@...dia.com
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] drm/tegra: Implement dynamic channel allocation
 model

On 05.11.2017 19:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 05.11.2017 14:01, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>> In the traditional channel allocation model, a single hardware channel
>> was allocated for each client. This is simple from an implementation
>> perspective but prevents use of hardware scheduling.
>>
>> This patch implements a channel allocation model where when a user
>> submits a job for a context, a hardware channel is allocated for
>> that context. The same channel is kept for as long as there are
>> incomplete jobs for that context. This way we can use hardware
>> scheduling and channel isolation between userspace processes, but
>> also prevent idling contexts from taking up hardware resources.
>>
>
> The dynamic channels resources (pushbuf) allocation is very expensive,
> neglecting all benefits that this model should bring at least in non-IOMMU case.
> We could have statically preallocated channels resources or defer resources freeing.

This is true. I'll try to figure out a nice way to keep the pushbuf 
allocations.

>
>> For now, this patch only adapts VIC to the new model.
>>
>
> I think VIC's conversion should be a distinct patch.

Sure.

Cheers,
Mikko