linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] drm: Add a sharable drm page-pool implementation

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:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:52:12 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Liam Mark <lmark@...eaurora.org>,
        Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
        Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@....com>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Mentz <danielmentz@...gle.com>,
        Ørjan Eide <orjan.eide@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...labora.com>,
        Simon Ser <contact@...rsion.fr>,
        James Jones <jajones@...dia.com>,
        linux-media <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] drm: Add a sharable drm page-pool implementation

Am 06.07.21 um 23:19 schrieb John Stultz:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 2:15 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 11:04 PM John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 11:52 PM Christian König
>>> <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>>>> Am 01.07.21 um 00:24 schrieb John Stultz:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:10 AM Christian König
>>>>> <christian.koenig@....com> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 30.06.21 um 03:34 schrieb John Stultz:
>>>>>>> +static unsigned long page_pool_size; /* max size of the pool */
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(page_pool_size, "Number of pages in the drm page pool");
>>>>>>> +module_param(page_pool_size, ulong, 0644);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static atomic_long_t nr_managed_pages;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static struct mutex shrinker_lock;
>>>>>>> +static struct list_head shrinker_list;
>>>>>>> +static struct shrinker mm_shrinker;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * drm_page_pool_set_max - Sets maximum size of all pools
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Sets the maximum number of pages allows in all pools.
>>>>>>> + * This can only be set once, and the first caller wins.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +void drm_page_pool_set_max(unsigned long max)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +     if (!page_pool_size)
>>>>>>> +             page_pool_size = max;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>> + * drm_page_pool_get_max - Maximum size of all pools
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Return the maximum number of pages allows in all pools
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +unsigned long drm_page_pool_get_max(void)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +     return page_pool_size;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> Well in general I don't think it is a good idea to have getters/setters
>>>>>> for one line functionality, similar applies to locking/unlocking the
>>>>>> mutex below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then in this specific case what those functions do is to aid
>>>>>> initializing the general pool manager and that in turn should absolutely
>>>>>> not be exposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The TTM pool manager exposes this as function because initializing the
>>>>>> pool manager is done in one part of the module and calculating the
>>>>>> default value for the pages in another one. But that is not something I
>>>>>> would like to see here.
>>>>> So, I guess I'm not quite clear on what you'd like to see...
>>>>>
>>>>> Part of what I'm balancing here is the TTM subsystem normally sets a
>>>>> global max size, whereas the old ION pool didn't have caps (instead
>>>>> just relying on the shrinker when needed).
>>>>> So I'm trying to come up with a solution that can serve both uses. So
>>>>> I've got this drm_page_pool_set_max() function to optionally set the
>>>>> maximum value, which is called in the TTM initialization path or set
>>>>> the boot argument. But for systems that use the dmabuf system heap,
>>>>> but don't use TTM, no global limit is enforced.
>>>> Yeah, exactly that's what I'm trying to prevent.
>>>>
>>>> See if we have the same functionality used by different use cases we
>>>> should not have different behavior depending on what drivers are loaded.
>>>>
>>>> Is it a problem if we restrict the ION pool to 50% of system memory as
>>>> well? If yes than I would rather drop the limit from TTM and only rely
>>>> on the shrinker there as well.
>>> Would having the default value as a config option (still overridable
>>> via boot argument) be an acceptable solution?
>> We're also trying to get ttm over to the shrinker model, and a first
>> cut of that even landed, but didn't really work out yet. So maybe just
>> aiming for the shrinker? I do agree this should be consistent across
>> the board, otherwise we're just sharing code but not actually sharing
>> functionality, which is a recipe for disaster because one side will
>> end up breaking the other side's use-case.
> Fair enough, maybe it would be best to remove the default limit, but
> leave the logic so it can still be set via the boot argument?

Yeah, that would work for me and the shrinker implementation should 
already be good enough.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> thanks
> -john