[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a3y2=FyzK4S6MRfZdrz=DdLat1ajdT_uPmN533mNYmF9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 10:32:27 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Yuji Ishikawa <yuji2.ishikawa@...hiba.co.jp>,
Jiho Chu <jiho.chu@...sung.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New subsystem for acceleration devices
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:04 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 08:23:27AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > This is different from the number of FDs pointing at the struct file.
> > > Userpsace can open a HW state and point a lot of FDs at it, that is
> > > userspace's problem. From a kernel view they all share one struct file
> > > and thus one HW state.
> >
> > Yes, that's fine, if that is what is happening here, I have no
> > objection.
>
> It would be great if we could actually life that into a common
> layer (chardev or vfs) given just how common this, and drivers tend
> to get it wrong, do it suboptimal so often.
Totally agreed.
I think for devices with hardware MMU contexts you actually want to
bind the context to a 'mm_struct', and then ensure that the context
is only ever used from a process that shares this mm_struct,
regardless of who else has access to the same file or inode.
We did this in a somewhat hacky way in spufs a long time ago, and
I would expect this to be solved more cleanly in drivers/gpu/drm, but
I don't know where to look for that code.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists