-----Original Message-----
From: Jadav, Raag <raag.ja...@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:19 AM
To: Cavitt, Jonathan <jonathan.cav...@intel.com>
Cc: intel...@lists.freedesktop.org; Gupta, saurabhg <saurabhg.gu...@intel.com>;
Zuo, Alex <alex....@intel.com>; joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com; Brost, Matthew
<matthew.br...@intel.com>; Zhang, Jianxun <jianxun.zh...@intel.com>; Lin,
Shuicheng <shuicheng....@intel.com>; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org;
Wajdeczko, Michal <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>; Mrozek, Michal
<michal.mro...@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/5] drm/xe/xe_vm: Implement xe_vm_get_property_ioctl
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 03:01:27AM +0530, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> > From: Jadav, Raag <raag.ja...@intel.com>
> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 10:27:08PM +0530, Cavitt, Jonathan wrote:
> > > > From: Jadav, Raag <raag.ja...@intel.com>
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 03:26:15PM +0000, Jonathan Cavitt wrote:
> > > > > > Add support for userspace to request a list of observed faults
> > > > > > from a specified VM.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > +static int xe_vm_get_property_size(struct xe_vm *vm, u32 property)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + int size = -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > Mixing size and error codes is usually received with mixed feelings.
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + switch (property) {
> > > > > > + case DRM_XE_VM_GET_PROPERTY_FAULTS:
> > > > > > + spin_lock(&vm->faults.lock);
> > > > > > + size = vm->faults.len * sizeof(struct xe_vm_fault);
> > > > >
> > > > > size_mul() and,
> > > > > [1] perhaps fill it up into the pointer passed by the caller here?
> > > >
> > > > "The pointer passed by the caller". You mean the args pointer?
> > > >
> > > > We'd still need to check that the args->size value is empty here before
> > > > overwriting
> > > > it, and we'd also still need to return the size to the ioctl so we can
> > > > verify it's
> > > > acceptable later in xe_vm_get_property_verify_size.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you want to merge those two processes together into here?
> > >
> > > The semantics are a bit fuzzy to me. Why do we have a single ioctl for
> > > two different processes? Shouldn't they be handled separately?
> >
> > No. Sorry. Let me clarify.
> > "two different processes" = getting the size + verifying the size.
>
> Yes, which seems like they should be handlded with _FAULT_NUM and
> _FAULT_DATA ioctls but I guess we're way past it now.
The current implementation mirrors xe_query. Should we have separate
queries for getting the size of the query data and getting the data itself
in xe_query?
And just to preempt the question: this cannot be an xe_query because
the size of the returned data depends on the target VM, which cannot
be passed to the xe_query structure on the first pass when calculating
the size. And just reporting the maximum possible size was rejected
separately.
>
> I'm also not much informed about the history here. Is there a real
> usecase behind exposing them? What is the user expected to do with
> this information?
This is a request from Vulkan, and is necessary to satisfy the requirements
for one of their interfaces. Specifically,
https://registry.khronos.org/vulkan/specs/latest/man/html/VK_EXT_device_fault.html
-Jonathan Cavitt
>
> Raag
>
