Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve, unreserve}
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:53 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:17:48PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(>tbo, true, false, NULL);
> > > > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv,
> > > > > NULL);
> > > > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
> > > > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only
> > > > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
> > > > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
> > >
> > > It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also
> > > can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that.
> > Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section.
> > The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive. Someone
> > needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO
> > can go away before the vbuf is retired.
>
> Note that patches 14+15 rework virtio_gpu_transfer_*_ioctl to keep
> gem reference until the command is finished and patch 17 drops
> virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve} altogether.
>
> Maybe I should try to reorder the series, then squash 6+17 to reduce
> confusion. I suspect that'll cause quite a few conflicts though ...
This may be well-known and is what you meant by "the fence keeps the
bo alive", but I finally realize that ttm_bo_put delays the deletion
of a BO when it is busy.
In the current design, vbuf does not hold references to its BOs. Nor
do fences. It is possible for a BO to lose all its references and
gets virtio_gpu_gem_free_object()ed while it is still busy. The key
is ttm_bo_put.
ttm_bo_put calls ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_or_queue to decide whether to
delete the BO immediately (when the BO is already idle) or to queue
the BO to a delayed delete list (when the BO is still busy). If a BO
is queued to the delayed delete list, ttm_bo_delayed_delete is called
every 10ms (HZ/100 to be exact) to scan through the list and delete
idled BOs.
I wrote a simple test (attached) and added a bunch of printk's to confirm this.
Anyway, I believe the culprit is patch 11, when we switch from
ttm_bo_put to drm_gem_shmem_free_object to free a BO whose last
reference is gone. The deletion becomes immediately after the switch.
We need to fix vbuf to refcount its BOs before we can do the switch.
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
/* gcc -std=c11 -D_GNU_SOURCE -o virtio-gpu-bo virtio-gpu-bo.c */
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define PIPE_BUFFER 0
#define VIRGL_FORMAT_R8_UNORM 64
#define VIRGL_BIND_CONSTANT_BUFFER (1 << 6)
#define DRM_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE 0x04
#define DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE \
DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE, \
struct drm_virtgpu_resource_create)
struct drm_virtgpu_resource_create {
uint32_t target;
uint32_t format;
uint32_t bind;
uint32_t width;
uint32_t height;
uint32_t depth;
uint32_t array_size;
uint32_t last_level;
uint32_t nr_samples;
uint32_t flags;
uint32_t bo_handle;
uint32_t res_handle;
uint32_t size;
uint32_t stride;
};
struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box {
uint32_t x, y, z;
uint32_t w, h, d;
};
#define DRM_VIRTGPU_TRANSFER_TO_HOST 0x07
#define DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_TRANSFER_TO_HOST \
DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + DRM_VIRTGPU_TRANSFER_TO_HOST, \
struct drm_virtgpu_3d_transfer_to_host)
struct drm_virtgpu_3d_transfer_to_host {
uint32_t bo_handle;
struct drm_virtgpu_3d_box box;
uint32_t level;
uint32_t offset;
};
static uint32_t buffer_create(int fd, uint32_t size)
{
struct drm_virtgpu_resource_create args = {
.target = PIPE_BUFFER,
.format = VIRGL_FORMAT_R8_UNORM,
.bind = VIRGL_BIND_CONSTANT_BUFFER,
.width = size,
.height = 1,
.depth = 1,
.array_size = 1,
.nr_samples = 1,
};
int ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE, );
assert(!ret);
return args.bo_handle;
}
static void buffer_close(int fd, uint32_t bo)
{
struct drm_gem_close args = {
.handle = bo,
};
int ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_CLOSE, );
assert(!ret);
}
static void transfer_to_host(int fd, uint32_t bo, uint32_t size)
{
struct drm_virtgpu_3d_transfer_to_host args = {
.bo_handle = bo,
.box.w = size,
.box.h = 1,
.box.d = 1,
};
int ret = ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_VIRTGPU_TRANSFER_TO_HOST, );
assert(!ret);
}
int main()
{
const uint32_t size = 1 * 1024 * 1024;
int fd = open("/dev/dri/renderD128", O_RDWR);
assert(fd >= 0);
uint32_t bo = buffer_create(fd, size);
printf("transfer and close the BO immediately...\n");
transfer_to_host(fd, bo, size);
buffer_close(fd, bo);
printf("wait for 1
Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve}
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:17:48PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(>tbo, true, false, NULL);
> > > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv,
> > > > NULL);
> > > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
> > > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only
> > > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
> > > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
> >
> > It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also
> > can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that.
> Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section.
> The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive. Someone
> needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO
> can go away before the vbuf is retired.
Note that patches 14+15 rework virtio_gpu_transfer_*_ioctl to keep
gem reference until the command is finished and patch 17 drops
virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve} altogether.
Maybe I should try to reorder the series, then squash 6+17 to reduce
confusion. I suspect that'll cause quite a few conflicts though ...
cheers,
Gerd
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve, unreserve}
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(>tbo, true, false, NULL); > > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, > > > NULL); > > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for > > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only > > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and > > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive. > > It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also > can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that. Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section. The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive. Someone needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO can go away before the vbuf is retired. I can be wrong, but on the other hand, it seems fine for a BO to go away before the vbuf using it is retired. When that happens, the driver emits a RESOURCE_UNREF vbuf which is *after* the original vbuf. > > cheers, > Gerd > ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve}
Hi, > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(>tbo, true, false, NULL); > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL); > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive. It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that. cheers, Gerd ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve, unreserve}
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:19 AM Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Call reservation_object_* directly instead
> of using ttm_bo_{reserve,unreserve}.
>
> v4: check for EINTR only.
> v3: check for EINTR too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
> index 06cc0e961df6..07f6001ea91e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
> @@ -402,9 +402,9 @@ static inline int virtio_gpu_object_reserve(struct
> virtio_gpu_object *bo)
> {
> int r;
>
> - r = ttm_bo_reserve(>tbo, true, false, NULL);
> + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL);
Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only
three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
> if (unlikely(r != 0)) {
> - if (r != -ERESTARTSYS) {
> + if (r != -EINTR) {
> struct virtio_gpu_device *qdev =
> bo->gem_base.dev->dev_private;
> dev_err(qdev->dev, "%p reserve failed\n", bo);
> @@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ static inline int virtio_gpu_object_reserve(struct
> virtio_gpu_object *bo)
>
> static inline void virtio_gpu_object_unreserve(struct virtio_gpu_object *bo)
> {
> - ttm_bo_unreserve(>tbo);
> + reservation_object_unlock(bo->gem_base.resv);
> }
>
> /* virgl debufs */
> --
> 2.18.1
>
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
