Message-ID: <aFE6pq8l33NXfFdT@pollux>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:51:34 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To: Rob Clark <rob.clark@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/gpuvm: Add locking helpers

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 03:25:08PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 2:39 PM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 08:03:20AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 3:39 AM Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 04:57:03PM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > > For UNMAP/REMAP steps we could be needing to lock objects that are not
> > > > > explicitly listed in the VM_BIND ioctl in order to tear-down unmapped
> > > > > VAs.  These helpers handle locking/preparing the needed objects.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's a common use-case. I think drivers typically iterate through their
> > > > drm_gpuva_ops to lock those objects.
> > > >
> > > > I had a look at you link [1] and it seems that you keep a list of ops as well by
> > > > calling vm_op_enqueue() with a new struct msm_vm_op from the callbacks.
> > > >
> > > > Please note that for exactly this case there is the op_alloc callback in
> > > > struct drm_gpuvm_ops, such that you can allocate a custom op type (i.e. struct
> > > > msm_vm_op) that embedds a struct drm_gpuva_op.
> > >
> > > I did use drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create() in an earlier iteration of my
> > > VM_BIND series, but it wasn't quite what I was after.  I wanted to
> > > apply the VM updates immediately to avoid issues with a later
> > > map/unmap overlapping an earlier map, which
> > > drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create() doesn't really handle.  I'm not even
> > > sure why this isn't a problem for other drivers unless userspace is
> > > providing some guarantees.
> >
> > The drm_gpuva_ops are usually used in a pattern like this.
> >
> >         vm_bind {
> >                 for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			    drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create();
> >                         drm_gpuva_for_each_op {
> >                                 // modify drm_gpuvm's interval tree
> >                                 // pre-allocate memory
> >                                 // lock and prepare objects
> >                         }
> >                 }
> >
> >                 drm_sched_entity_push_job();
> >         }
> >
> >         run_job {
> >                 for_each_vm_bind_operation {
> >                         drm_gpuva_for_each_op {
> >                                 // modify page tables
> >                         }
> >                 }
> >         }
> >
> >         run_job {
> >                 for_each_vm_bind_operation {
> >                         drm_gpuva_for_each_op {
> >                                 // free page table structures, if any
> >                                 // free unused pre-allocated memory
> >                         }
> >                 }
> >         }
> >
> > What did you do instead to get map/unmap overlapping? Even more interesting,
> > what are you doing now?
> 
> From what I can tell, the drivers using drm_gpva_for_each_op()/etc are
> doing drm_gpuva_remove() while iterating the ops list..
> drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create() itself does not modify the VM.  So this
> can only really work if you perform one MAP or UNMAP at a time.  Or at
> least if you process the VM modifying part of the ops list before
> proceeding to the next op.

(Added the drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create() step above.)

I went through the code you posted [1] and conceptually you're implementing
exactly the pattern I described above, i.e. you do:

	vm_bind {
		for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_exec_lock();
		}

		for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz() {
				// modify drm_gpuvm's interval tree
				// create custom ops
			}
		}

		drm_sched_entity_push_job();
	}

	run_job {
		for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			for_each_custom_op() {
				// do stuff
			}
		}
	}

However, GPUVM intends to solve your use-case with the following, semantically
identical, approach.

	vm_bind {
		for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			drm_gpuvm_sm_xyz_ops_create();

			drm_gpuva_for_each_op {
				// modify drm_gpuvm's interval tree
				// lock and prepare objects (1)
			}
		}

		drm_sched_entity_push_job();
	}

	run_job {
		for_each_vm_bind_operation {
			drm_gpuva_for_each_op() {
				// do stuff
			}
		}
	}

(Note that GPUVM already supports to extend the existing OP structures; you
should take advantage of that.)

Hence, the helper we really want is to lock and prepare the objects at (1). I.e.
a helper that takes a pointer to a struct drm_gpuva_op and locks / validates the
corresponding objects.

[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/robclark/msm/-/blob/sparse-newer/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_vma.c

Powered by blists - more mailing lists