Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: rodrigo.vivi@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/xe/dgfx: Block rpm for active mmap mappings
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 11:26:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c3e2e04f-7cb3-4d68-b19a-5c7271a0c626@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231206133421.3295163-2-badal.nilawar@intel.com>

On 06/12/2023 13:34, Badal Nilawar wrote:
> Block rpm for discrete cards when mmap mappings are active.
> Ideally rpm wake ref should be taken in vm_open call and put in vm_close
> call but it is seen that vm_open doesn't get called for xe_gem_vm_ops.
> Therefore rpm wake ref is being get in xe_drm_gem_ttm_mmap and put
> in vm_close.
> 
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> index 72dc4a4eed4e..5741948a2a51 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>   #include <drm/ttm/ttm_tt.h>
>   #include <drm/xe_drm.h>
>   
> +#include "i915_drv.h"

Do we need this?

>   #include "xe_device.h"
>   #include "xe_dma_buf.h"
>   #include "xe_drm_client.h"
> @@ -1158,17 +1159,47 @@ static vm_fault_t xe_gem_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> +static void xe_ttm_bo_vm_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> +	struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo = vma->vm_private_data;
> +	struct drm_device *ddev = tbo->base.dev;
> +	struct xe_device *xe = to_xe_device(ddev);
> +
> +	ttm_bo_vm_close(vma);
> +
> +	if (tbo->resource->bus.is_iomem)
> +		xe_device_mem_access_put(xe);
> +}
> +
>   static const struct vm_operations_struct xe_gem_vm_ops = {
>   	.fault = xe_gem_fault,
>   	.open = ttm_bo_vm_open,
> -	.close = ttm_bo_vm_close,
> +	.close = xe_ttm_bo_vm_close,
>   	.access = ttm_bo_vm_access
>   };
>   
> +int xe_drm_gem_ttm_mmap(struct drm_gem_object *gem,
> +			struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> +	struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo = drm_gem_ttm_of_gem(gem);
> +	struct drm_device *ddev = tbo->base.dev;
> +	struct xe_device *xe = to_xe_device(ddev);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = drm_gem_ttm_mmap(gem, vma);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (tbo->resource->bus.is_iomem)
> +		xe_device_mem_access_get(xe);

Checking is_iomem outside of the usual locking is racy. One issue here 
is that is_iomem can freely change at any point (like at fault time) so 
when vm_close is called you can easily get an an unbalanced RPM ref 
count. For example io_mem is false here but later becomes true in 
bo_vm_close and then we call mem_access_put even though we never called 
mem_access_get.

Maybe check the possible placements of the object instead since that is 
immutable?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs xe_gem_object_funcs = {
>   	.free = xe_gem_object_free,
>   	.close = xe_gem_object_close,
> -	.mmap = drm_gem_ttm_mmap,
> +	.mmap = xe_drm_gem_ttm_mmap,
>   	.export = xe_gem_prime_export,
>   	.vm_ops = &xe_gem_vm_ops,
>   };

  reply	other threads:[~2023-12-07 11:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-06 13:34 [Intel-xe] [PATCH 0/2] Handle mmap with D3 Badal Nilawar
2023-12-06 13:34 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 1/2] drm/xe/dgfx: Block rpm for active mmap mappings Badal Nilawar
2023-12-07 11:26   ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-12-07 13:06     ` Matthew Auld
2023-12-08  7:29       ` Nilawar, Badal
2023-12-08  9:11         ` Matthew Auld
2023-12-08  7:17     ` Nilawar, Badal
2023-12-08  9:27       ` Matthew Auld
2023-12-06 13:34 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/2] drm/xe/dgfx: Release mmap mappings on rpm suspend Badal Nilawar
2023-12-07 11:37   ` Matthew Auld
2023-12-07 17:00     ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-12-08 11:15   ` [Intel-xe] " Thomas Hellström
2023-12-06 16:28 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Handle mmap with D3 Patchwork
2023-12-06 16:28 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-12-06 16:28 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.KUnit: failure " Patchwork

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=c3e2e04f-7cb3-4d68-b19a-5c7271a0c626@intel.com \
    --to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
    --cc=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox