From: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
matthew.auld@intel.com, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Marcin Wojtas <mwojtas@chromium.org>,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@chromium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:01:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZVfw3ghfBLdHB7uk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVQ3d8FFqxsy0OX7@intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:13:59PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> > Fix the value of variable `phys_base` to be the relative offset in
> > stolen memory, and not the absolute offset of the GSM.
>
> to me it looks like the other way around. phys_base is the physical
> base address for the frame_buffer. Setting it to zero doesn't seem
> to make that relative. And also doesn't look right.
>
> >
> > Currently, the value of `phys_base` is set to "Surface Base Address,"
> > which in the case of Meter Lake is 0xfc00_0000.
>
> I don't believe this is a fixed value. IIRC this comes from the register
> set by video bios, where the idea is to reuse the fb that was used so
> far.
>
> With this in mind I don't understand how that could overflow. Maybe
> the size of the stolen is not right? maybe the size? maybe different
> memory region?
>
Hi Rodrigo, thanks for the great comments.
Apologies for using a wrong/confusing terminology. I think 'phys_base'
is supposed to be the offset in the GEM BO, where base (or
"Surface Base Address") is supposed to be the GTT offset.
Other than what I wrote before, I noticed that the function 'i915_vma_pin'
which calls to 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve' is the one that binds the right
address space in the GTT for that stolen region.
I see that in the function 'i915_vma_insert' (full call stack below),
where if (flags & PIN_OFFSET_FIXED), then when calling 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve'
we add an offset.
Specifically in MeteorLake, and specifically when using GOP driver, this
offset is equal to 0xfc00_0000. But as you mentioned, this is not strict.
The if statement always renders true because in the function
'initial_plane_vma' we always set
pinctl = PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_OFFSET_FIXED | base;
where pinctl == flags (see file 'intel_plane_initial.c' line 145).
Call stack:
drm_mm_reserve_node
i915_gem_gtt_reserve
i915_vma_insert
i915_vma_pin_ww
i915_vma_pin
initial_plane_vma
intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
intel_find_initial_plane_obj
Therefore, I believe the variable 'phys_base' in the
function 'initial_plane_vma,' should be the the offset in the GEM BO
and not the GTT offset, and because the base is added later on
in the function 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve', this value should not be
equal to base and be 0.
Hope it makes more sense.
> > This causes the
> > function `i915_gem_object_create_region_at` to fail in line 128, when
> > it attempts to verify that the range does not overflow:
> >
> > if (range_overflows(offset, size, resource_size(&mem->region)))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > where:
> > offset = 0xfc000000
> > size = 0x8ca000
> > mem->region.end + 1 = 0x4400000
> > mem->region.start = 0x800000
> > resource_size(&mem->region) = 0x3c00000
> >
> > call stack:
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > Looking at the flow coming next, we see that `phys_base` is only used
> > once, in function `_i915_gem_object_stolen_init`, in the context of
> > the offset *in* the stolen memory. Combining that with an
> > examinination of the history of the file seems to indicate the
> > current value set is invalid.
> >
> > call stack (functions using `phys_base`)
> > _i915_gem_object_stolen_init
> > __i915_gem_object_create_region
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > [drm:_i915_gem_object_stolen_init] creating preallocated stolen
> > object: stolen_offset=0x0000000000000000, size=0x00000000008ca000
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > index a55c09cbd0e4..e696cb13756a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ initial_plane_vma(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > "Using phys_base=%pa, based on initial plane programming\n",
> > &phys_base);
> > } else {
> > - phys_base = base;
> > + phys_base = 0;
> > mem = i915->mm.stolen_region;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
matthew.auld@intel.com, Marcin Wojtas <mwojtas@chromium.org>,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@chromium.org>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:01:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZVfw3ghfBLdHB7uk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVQ3d8FFqxsy0OX7@intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:13:59PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> > Fix the value of variable `phys_base` to be the relative offset in
> > stolen memory, and not the absolute offset of the GSM.
>
> to me it looks like the other way around. phys_base is the physical
> base address for the frame_buffer. Setting it to zero doesn't seem
> to make that relative. And also doesn't look right.
>
> >
> > Currently, the value of `phys_base` is set to "Surface Base Address,"
> > which in the case of Meter Lake is 0xfc00_0000.
>
> I don't believe this is a fixed value. IIRC this comes from the register
> set by video bios, where the idea is to reuse the fb that was used so
> far.
>
> With this in mind I don't understand how that could overflow. Maybe
> the size of the stolen is not right? maybe the size? maybe different
> memory region?
>
Hi Rodrigo, thanks for the great comments.
Apologies for using a wrong/confusing terminology. I think 'phys_base'
is supposed to be the offset in the GEM BO, where base (or
"Surface Base Address") is supposed to be the GTT offset.
Other than what I wrote before, I noticed that the function 'i915_vma_pin'
which calls to 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve' is the one that binds the right
address space in the GTT for that stolen region.
I see that in the function 'i915_vma_insert' (full call stack below),
where if (flags & PIN_OFFSET_FIXED), then when calling 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve'
we add an offset.
Specifically in MeteorLake, and specifically when using GOP driver, this
offset is equal to 0xfc00_0000. But as you mentioned, this is not strict.
The if statement always renders true because in the function
'initial_plane_vma' we always set
pinctl = PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_OFFSET_FIXED | base;
where pinctl == flags (see file 'intel_plane_initial.c' line 145).
Call stack:
drm_mm_reserve_node
i915_gem_gtt_reserve
i915_vma_insert
i915_vma_pin_ww
i915_vma_pin
initial_plane_vma
intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
intel_find_initial_plane_obj
Therefore, I believe the variable 'phys_base' in the
function 'initial_plane_vma,' should be the the offset in the GEM BO
and not the GTT offset, and because the base is added later on
in the function 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve', this value should not be
equal to base and be 0.
Hope it makes more sense.
> > This causes the
> > function `i915_gem_object_create_region_at` to fail in line 128, when
> > it attempts to verify that the range does not overflow:
> >
> > if (range_overflows(offset, size, resource_size(&mem->region)))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > where:
> > offset = 0xfc000000
> > size = 0x8ca000
> > mem->region.end + 1 = 0x4400000
> > mem->region.start = 0x800000
> > resource_size(&mem->region) = 0x3c00000
> >
> > call stack:
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > Looking at the flow coming next, we see that `phys_base` is only used
> > once, in function `_i915_gem_object_stolen_init`, in the context of
> > the offset *in* the stolen memory. Combining that with an
> > examinination of the history of the file seems to indicate the
> > current value set is invalid.
> >
> > call stack (functions using `phys_base`)
> > _i915_gem_object_stolen_init
> > __i915_gem_object_create_region
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > [drm:_i915_gem_object_stolen_init] creating preallocated stolen
> > object: stolen_offset=0x0000000000000000, size=0x00000000008ca000
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > index a55c09cbd0e4..e696cb13756a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ initial_plane_vma(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > "Using phys_base=%pa, based on initial plane programming\n",
> > &phys_base);
> > } else {
> > - phys_base = base;
> > + phys_base = 0;
> > mem = i915->mm.stolen_region;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: matthew.auld@intel.com, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Subrata Banik <subratabanik@google.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mwojtas@chromium.org>,
Drew Davenport <ddavenport@chromium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 23:01:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZVfw3ghfBLdHB7uk@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZVQ3d8FFqxsy0OX7@intel.com>
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:13:59PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2023 at 05:27:03PM +0000, Paz Zcharya wrote:
> > Fix the value of variable `phys_base` to be the relative offset in
> > stolen memory, and not the absolute offset of the GSM.
>
> to me it looks like the other way around. phys_base is the physical
> base address for the frame_buffer. Setting it to zero doesn't seem
> to make that relative. And also doesn't look right.
>
> >
> > Currently, the value of `phys_base` is set to "Surface Base Address,"
> > which in the case of Meter Lake is 0xfc00_0000.
>
> I don't believe this is a fixed value. IIRC this comes from the register
> set by video bios, where the idea is to reuse the fb that was used so
> far.
>
> With this in mind I don't understand how that could overflow. Maybe
> the size of the stolen is not right? maybe the size? maybe different
> memory region?
>
Hi Rodrigo, thanks for the great comments.
Apologies for using a wrong/confusing terminology. I think 'phys_base'
is supposed to be the offset in the GEM BO, where base (or
"Surface Base Address") is supposed to be the GTT offset.
Other than what I wrote before, I noticed that the function 'i915_vma_pin'
which calls to 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve' is the one that binds the right
address space in the GTT for that stolen region.
I see that in the function 'i915_vma_insert' (full call stack below),
where if (flags & PIN_OFFSET_FIXED), then when calling 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve'
we add an offset.
Specifically in MeteorLake, and specifically when using GOP driver, this
offset is equal to 0xfc00_0000. But as you mentioned, this is not strict.
The if statement always renders true because in the function
'initial_plane_vma' we always set
pinctl = PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_OFFSET_FIXED | base;
where pinctl == flags (see file 'intel_plane_initial.c' line 145).
Call stack:
drm_mm_reserve_node
i915_gem_gtt_reserve
i915_vma_insert
i915_vma_pin_ww
i915_vma_pin
initial_plane_vma
intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
intel_find_initial_plane_obj
Therefore, I believe the variable 'phys_base' in the
function 'initial_plane_vma,' should be the the offset in the GEM BO
and not the GTT offset, and because the base is added later on
in the function 'i915_gem_gtt_reserve', this value should not be
equal to base and be 0.
Hope it makes more sense.
> > This causes the
> > function `i915_gem_object_create_region_at` to fail in line 128, when
> > it attempts to verify that the range does not overflow:
> >
> > if (range_overflows(offset, size, resource_size(&mem->region)))
> > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > where:
> > offset = 0xfc000000
> > size = 0x8ca000
> > mem->region.end + 1 = 0x4400000
> > mem->region.start = 0x800000
> > resource_size(&mem->region) = 0x3c00000
> >
> > call stack:
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > Looking at the flow coming next, we see that `phys_base` is only used
> > once, in function `_i915_gem_object_stolen_init`, in the context of
> > the offset *in* the stolen memory. Combining that with an
> > examinination of the history of the file seems to indicate the
> > current value set is invalid.
> >
> > call stack (functions using `phys_base`)
> > _i915_gem_object_stolen_init
> > __i915_gem_object_create_region
> > i915_gem_object_create_region_at
> > initial_plane_vma
> > intel_alloc_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_find_initial_plane_obj
> > intel_crtc_initial_plane_config
> >
> > [drm:_i915_gem_object_stolen_init] creating preallocated stolen
> > object: stolen_offset=0x0000000000000000, size=0x00000000008ca000
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paz Zcharya <pazz@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > index a55c09cbd0e4..e696cb13756a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_plane_initial.c
> > @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ initial_plane_vma(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> > "Using phys_base=%pa, based on initial plane programming\n",
> > &phys_base);
> > } else {
> > - phys_base = base;
> > + phys_base = 0;
> > mem = i915->mm.stolen_region;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.42.0.869.gea05f2083d-goog
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-17 23:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-05 17:27 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/display: Fix phys_base to be relative not absolute Paz Zcharya
2023-11-05 17:27 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-05 17:27 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-05 18:19 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2023-11-15 3:13 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-11-15 3:13 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-11-15 3:13 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-11-17 23:01 ` Paz Zcharya [this message]
2023-11-17 23:01 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-17 23:01 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-21 12:06 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-21 12:06 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-22 13:26 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-22 13:26 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 1:20 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 1:20 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 1:20 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 3:47 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 3:47 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 3:47 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 11:12 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 11:12 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 11:12 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-11-28 11:19 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 11:19 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-28 11:19 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-30 16:24 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-30 16:24 ` Paz Zcharya
2023-11-30 16:24 ` Paz Zcharya
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZVfw3ghfBLdHB7uk@google.com \
--to=pazz@chromium.org \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=andrzej.hajda@intel.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=ddavenport@chromium.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=mwojtas@chromium.org \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=seanpaul@chromium.org \
--cc=subratabanik@google.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.