[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <05b06e5d-03aa-14f4-46b1-6057c4437043@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 09:42:44 +0200
From: Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
To: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>, airlied@...il.com,
daniel@...ll.ch, matthew.brost@...el.com, sarah.walker@...tec.com,
donald.robson@...tec.com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
christian.koenig@....com, faith.ekstrand@...labora.com
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next v3 5/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for a
VM / BO combination
Hi, Danilo
On 9/11/23 19:49, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 9/11/23 19:19, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>> Hi, Danilo
>>
>> On 9/9/23 17:31, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> This patch adds an abstraction layer between the drm_gpuva mappings of
>>> a particular drm_gem_object and this GEM object itself. The abstraction
>>> represents a combination of a drm_gem_object and drm_gpuvm. The
>>> drm_gem_object holds a list of drm_gpuvm_bo structures (the structure
>>> representing this abstraction), while each drm_gpuvm_bo contains
>>> list of
>>> mappings of this GEM object.
>>>
>>> This has multiple advantages:
>>>
>>> 1) We can use the drm_gpuvm_bo structure to attach it to various lists
>>> of the drm_gpuvm. This is useful for tracking external and evicted
>>> objects per VM, which is introduced in subsequent patches.
>>>
>>> 2) Finding mappings of a certain drm_gem_object mapped in a certain
>>> drm_gpuvm becomes much cheaper.
>>>
>>> 3) Drivers can derive and extend the structure to easily represent
>>> driver specific states of a BO for a certain GPUVM.
>>>
>>> The idea of this abstraction was taken from amdgpu, hence the credit
>>> for
>>> this idea goes to the developers of amdgpu.
>>>
>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
>>
>> Did you consider having the drivers embed the struct drm_gpuvm_bo in
>> their own bo definition? I figure that would mean using the gem bo's
>> refcounting and providing a helper to call from the driver's bo
>> release. Looks like that could potentially save a lot of code? Or is
>> there something that won't work with that approach?
>
> There are drm_gpuvm_ops::vm_bo_alloc and drm_gpuvm_ops::vm_bo_free
> callback for drivers to register for that purpose.
>
> - Danilo
Now after looking a bit deeper, I think actually the question could be
rephrased as, why don't we just use the
struct drm_gem_object::gpuva struct as the drm_gpuvm_bo in the spirit of
keeping things simple? Drivers would then just embed it in their bo
subclass and we'd avoid unnecessary fields in the struct drm_gem_object
for drivers that don't do VM_BIND yet.
Sure, this won't be per bo and per vm, but it'd really only make a
slight difference where we have multiple VMAs per bo, where per-vm
per-bo state either needs to be duplicated or attached to a single vma
(as in the case of the external bo list).
To me that looks like a substantial amount of less code / complexity?
/Thomas
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists