linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/40] drm/gpuvm: Don't require obj lock in destructor path

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]

Message-ID: <CAPM=9tzcvDVDOM88O8oqDHURR1nbR7KsFStavNnT1CN6C6kGgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 07:25:13 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@...il.com>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>, 
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/40] drm/gpuvm: Don't require obj lock in destructor path

On Sat, 17 May 2025 at 02:20, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 2:01 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 02:57:46PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 10:55 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > Anyways, I don't agree with that. Even if you can tweak your driver to not run
> > > > into trouble with this, we can't introduce a mode that violates GOUVM's internal
> > > > lifetimes and subsequently fix it up with WARN_ON() or BUG_ON().
> > > >
> > > > I still don't see a real technical reason why msm can't be reworked to follow
> > > > those lifetime rules.
> > >
> > > The basic issue is that (a) it would be really awkward to have two
> > > side-by-side VM/VMA management/tracking systems.  But in legacy mode,
> > > we have the opposite direction of reference holding.  (But at the same
> > > time, don't need/use most of the features of gpuvm.)
> >
> > Ok, let's try to move this forward; I see three options (in order of descending
> > preference):
> >
> >   1) Rework the legacy code to properly work with GPUVM.
> >   2) Don't use GPUVM for the legacy mode.
> >   .
> >   .
> >   .
> >   3) Get an ACK from Dave / Sima to implement those workarounds for MSM in
> >      GPUVM.
> >
> > If you go for 3), the code introduced by those two patches should be guarded
> > with a flag that makes it very clear that this is a workaround specifically
> > for MSM legacy mode and does not give any guarantees in terms of correctness
> > regarding lifetimes etc., e.g. DRM_GPUVM_MSM_LEGACY_QUIRK.
>
> I'm not even sure how #2 would work, other than just copy/pasta all of
> drm_gpuvm into msm, which doesn't really seem great.
>
> As for #1, even if I could get it to work, it would still be a lot
> more mmu map/unmap (like on every pageflip, vs the current state that
> the vma is kept around until the object is freed).  For the
> non-VM_BIND world, there are advantages to the BO holding the ref to
> the VMA, rather than the other way around.  Even at just a modest
> single layer 1080p the map takes ~.2ms and unmap ~.3ms (plus the unmap
> costs a tlbinv).  So from that standpoint, #3 is the superior option.
>

Before we get to #3, I'll need a bit more info here on why you have to
map/unmap the VMA on every pageflip.

But actually I think 2 is the best option, I think in nouveau this is
where we ended up, we didn't modify the old submission paths at all
and kept the old bo/vm lifetimes.

We just added completely new bind/exec ioctls and you can only use one
method once you've opened an fd.

Dave.