Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: fix adding foreign BOs to the LRU during init

["Christian König" <deathsimple@vodafone.de>]

> While this would be one way to work around the GTT space DOS, it
> wouldn't work around the DOS problem of the exporter pinning system
> pages that probably never get accounted. That's a limitation of the
> export-import mechanism (dma-buf).

Yeah, completely agree. That's a problem we sooner or later need to 
address as well.

But currently I worry mostly about that specific problem at hand and how 
to fix it, the larger design problems need to wait.

Just send five patches out to the list and CCing you as well. You can 
ignore the last two which are amdgpu specific, but would be nice if you 
could take a look at the first three.

Thanks in advance,
Christian.

Am 11.01.2016 um 14:00 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
> On 01/11/2016 01:39 PM, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 10.01.2016 um 16:10 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
>>> On 01/09/2016 11:46 AM, Christian König wrote:
>>>> It's correct that exported buffers can't be moved to another domain or
>>>> swapped to disk while another device is using it.
>>>>
>>>> But for imports that's a different story:
>>>>> an imported object should never end up on a LRU list in TTM because
>>>>> TTM wouldn't know how to evict it.
>>>> Even currently the imported objects are actually added to the LRU. The
>>>> problem is just that they are not added immediately during creation,
>>>> but only with the first command submission.
>>> Hmm. The fact that they are added to LRU at all sounds weird. What
>>> happens when TTM tries to evict or even swap out an imported buffer?
>> Adding them to the domain LRU is perfectly normal for the imported
>> buffers and also works fine as far as I know.
>>
>> When TTM evicts them it just gets unmapped from GTT to make room in
>> the address space, which at least for Radeon and Amdgpu is exactly
>> what we want.
>>
>> That imported buffers get added to the swap LRU is indeed nonsense,
>> but not harmful as far as I can see. Going to fix that in a follow up
>> patch.
>>
> So the way TTM was designed when it was written was to be used to place
> data in memory types where it could later be mapped by CPU and GPU in a
> coherent fashion.
>
> The actual GPU mapping was primarily thought to be done by the driver as
> part of the validation process *after* that placement if needed.
>
> Now many (most, all) drivers don't need that second step since the
> memory type is directly mappable by the GPU, but in a situation where
> the core TTM functionality (placement and swapping) is completely
> replaced by another mechanism (such as imported buffers), not
> implementing the GPU binding and eviction in the driver as a separate
> step naturally generates a conflict.
>
> Now I'm not at all against TTM being used for GPU mapping only if that
> simplifies things for imported buffers but in that case IMO one should
> be aware of the limitations and we should find a way to mark those
> buffers GPU_MAP_ONLY to avoid having TTM competing with the exporter
> about the placement ad avoid putting it on the swap LRU.
>
> While this would be one way to work around the GTT space DOS, it
> wouldn't work around the DOS problem of the exporter pinning system
> pages that probably never get accounted. That's a limitation of the
> export-import mechanism (dma-buf).
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
>> Thanks for the comment,
>> Christian.
>>
>>> /Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.01.2016 um 08:05 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I might be misunderderstanding the use-case here, but IIRC the
>>>>> discussion with TTM vs imported / exported buffer objects is that a
>>>>> buffer object needs to be marked NO_EVICT in TTM before it's exported
>>>>> and an imported object should never end up on a LRU list in TTM
>>>>> because
>>>>> TTM wouldn't know how to evict it.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Thomas
>>>>>    On 01/08/2016 02:41 PM, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> From: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we import a BO with an eternal reservation object we don't
>>>>>> reserve/unreserve it. So we never add it to the LRU causing a
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> deny of service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> index 745e996..a98a5d5 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>>>> @@ -1170,9 +1170,15 @@ int ttm_bo_init(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
>>>>>>         if (likely(!ret))
>>>>>>             ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, placement, interruptible,
>>>>>> false);
>>>>>>     -    if (!resv)
>>>>>> +    if (!resv) {
>>>>>>             ttm_bo_unreserve(bo);
>>>>>>     +    } else if (!(bo->mem.placement & TTM_PL_FLAG_NO_EVICT)) {
>>>>>> +        spin_lock(&bo->glob->lru_lock);
>>>>>> +        ttm_bo_add_to_lru(bo);
>>>>>> +        spin_unlock(&bo->glob->lru_lock);
>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>         if (unlikely(ret))
>>>>>>             ttm_bo_unref(&bo);
>>>>>>     
>>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel