[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200616145312.GC6578@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:53:12 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Thomas Hellström (Intel)
<thomas_os@...pmail.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
Thomas Hellstrom <thomas.hellstrom@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH 04/18] dma-fence: prime lockdep
annotations
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 02:07:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > I've pinged a bunch of armsoc gpu driver people and ask them how much this
> > > hurts, so that we have a clear answer. On x86 I don't think we have much
> > > of a choice on this, with userptr in amd and i915 and hmm work in nouveau
> > > (but nouveau I think doesn't use dma_fence in there).
> >
> > Right, nor will RDMA ODP.
>
> Hm, what's the context here? I thought RDMA side you really don't want
> dma_fence in mmu_notifiers, so not clear to me what you're agreeing on
> here.
rdma does not use dma_fence at all, and though it is hard to tell, I
didn't notice a dma_fence in the nouveau invalidation call path.
At the very least I think there should be some big warning that
dma_fence in notifiers should be avoided.
Ie it is strange that the new totally-not-a-gpu drivers use dma_fence,
they surely don't have the same constraints as the existing GPU world,
and it would be annoying to see dma_fence notifiers spring up in them
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists