Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On 5/4/07, Thomas Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Keith Packard wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 01:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> It might be possible to find schemes that work around this. One
way
>> >> could possibly be to have a buffer mapping -and validate order for
>> >> shared buffers.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If mapping never blocks on anything other than the fence, then
there
>> > isn't any dead lock possibility. What this says is that ordering of
>> > rendering between clients is *not DRMs problem*. I think that's
a good
>> > solution though; I want to let multiple apps work on DRM-able
memory
>> > with their own CPU without contention.
>> >
>> > I don't recall if Eric layed out the proposed rules, but:
>> >
>> > 1) Map never blocks on map. Clients interested in dealing with
this
>> > are on their own.
>> >
>> > 2) Submit blocks on map. You must unmap all buffers before
submitting
>> > them. Doing the relocations in the kernel makes this all
possible.
>> >
>> > 3) Map blocks on the fence from submit. We can play with
pending the
>> > flush until the app asks for the buffer back, or we can play
with
>> > figuring out when flushes are useful automatically. Doesn't
matter
>> > if the policy is in the kernel.
>> >
>> > I'm interested in making deadlock avoidence trivial and eliminating
>> any
>> > map-map contention.
>> >
>> >
>> It's rare to have two clients access the same buffer at the same
time.
>> In what situation will this occur?
>>
>> If we think of map / unmap and validation / fence as taking a buffer
>> mutex either for the CPU or for the GPU, that's the way
implementation
>> is done today. The CPU side of the mutex should IIRC be per-client
>> recursive. OTOH, the TTM implementation won't stop the CPU from
>> accessing the buffer when it is unmapped, but then you're on your
own.
>> "Mutexes" need to be taken in the correct order, otherwise a deadlock
>> will occur, and GL will, as outlined in Eric's illustration, more or
>> less encourage us to take buffers in the "incorrect" order.
>>
>> In essence what you propose is to eliminate the deadlock problem
by just
>> avoiding taking the buffer mutex unless we know the GPU has it. I see
>> two problems with this:
>>
>> * It will encourage different DRI clients to simultaneously
access
>> the same buffer.
>> * Inter-client and GPU data coherence can be guaranteed if we
issue
>> a mb() / write-combining flush with the unmap operation (which,
>> BTW, I'm not sure is done today). Otherwise it is up to the
>> clients, and very easy to forget.
>>
>> I'm a bit afraid we might in the future regret taking the easy way
out?
>>
>> OTOH, letting DRM resolve the deadlock by unmapping and remapping
shared
>> buffers in the correct order might not be the best one either. It
will
>> certainly mean some CPU overhead and what if we have to do the
same with
>> buffer validation? (Yes for some operations with thousands and
thousands
>> of relocations, the user space validation might need to stay).
>>
>> Personally, I'm slightly biased towards having DRM resolve the
deadlock,
>> but I think any solution will do as long as the implications and
why we
>> choose a certain solution are totally clear.
>>
>> For item 3) above the kernel must have a way to issue a flush when
>> needed for buffer eviction.
>> The current implementation also requires the buffer to be completely
>> flushed before mapping.
>> Other than that the flushing policy is currently completely up to the
>> DRM drivers.
>>
>> /Thomas
>
> I might say stupid things as i don't think i fully understand all
> the input to this problem. Anyway here is my thought on all this:
>
> 1) First client map never block (as in Keith layout) except on
> fence from drm side (point 3 in Keith layout)
>
But is there really a need for this except to avoid the above-mentioned
deadlock?
As I'm not too up to date with all the possibilities the servers and GL
clients may be using shared buffers,
I need some enlightenment :). Could we have an example, please?
