On 03/23/2011 01:51 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> I was thinking about this a bit after I found that the PowerPC requires
>>> the 'struct dev'. But I got a question first, what do you with pages
>>> that were allocated to a device that can do 64-bit DMA and then
>>> move it to a device than can 32-bit DMA? Obviously the 32-bit card would
>>> set the TTM_PAGE_FLAG_DMA32 flag, but the 64-bit would not. What is the
>>> process then? Allocate a new page from the 32-bit device and then copy over
>>> the
>>> page from the 64-bit TTM and put the 64-bit TTM page?
>>>
>> Yes, in certain situations we need to copy, and if it's necessary in
>> some cases to use coherent memory with a struct device assoicated
>> with it, I agree it may be reasonable to do a copy in that case as
>> well. I'm against, however, to make that the default case when
>> running on bare metal.
>>
> This situation could occur on native/baremetal. When you say 'default
> case' you mean for every type of page without consulting whether it
> had the TTM_PAGE_FLAG_DMA32?
>
No, Basically I mean a device that runs perfectly fine with
alloc_pages(DMA32) on bare metal shouldn't need to be using
dma_alloc_coherent() on bare metal, because that would mean we'd need
to take the copy path above.
>> However, I've looked a bit deeper into all this, and it looks like
>> we already have other problems that need to be addressed, and that
>> exists with the code already in git:
>>
>> Consider a situation where you allocate a cached DMA32 page from the
>> ttm page allocator. You'll end up with a coherent page. Then you
>> make it uncached and finally you return it to the ttm page
>> allocator. Since it's uncached, it will not be freed by the dma api,
>> but kept in the uncached pool, and later the incorrect page free
>> function will be called.
>>
> Let me look in details in the code, but I thought it would check the
> TTM_PAGE_FLAG_DMA32 and direct the page to the correct pool?
>
> We could piggyback on the idea of the struct I had and have these
> values:
>
> struct ttm_page {
> struct page *page;
> dma_addr_t *bus_addr;
> struct *ttm_pool *origin;
> }
>
> And the origin would point to the correct pool so that on de-allocate
> it would divert it to the original one. Naturally there would
> be some thinking to be done on the de-alloc path so that
> the *origin isn't pointing to something htat has already been free-d.
>
The idea with these pools is to keep a cache of write-combined pages, so
the pool
is determined by the caching status of the page when it is returned to
the page
allocator.
If we were to associate a page with a device, we'd basically need one
such pool per
device.
>
>> I think we might need to take a few steps back and rethink this whole idea:
>>
>> 1) How does this work in the AGP case? Let's say you allocate
>> write-combined DMA32 pages from the ttm page pool (in this case you
>> won't get coherent memory) and then use them in an AGP gart? Why is
>> it that we don't need coherent pages then in the Xen case?
>>
> Hehe.. So I had posted a set of patches to carry the 'dma_addr_t' through
> the AGP API and then to its backends to program that. And also the frontends
> (so DRM, TTM) Here is the
> patchset I posted some time ago:
>
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-12/msg02382.html
> and the discussion:
>
> http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2010-12/msg02411.html
>
> Dave recommended I skip AGP and just concentrate on PCIe since not to many
> folks use AGP anymore. Thought I realized that server boards use PCI
> cards (ATI ES1000), which do utilize the AGP API. So there is breakage there
> and I have a set of patches for this that I was in process of rebasing
> on 2.6.39-rcX.
>
I see. Well, both in the AGP case and sometimes in the PCIe case,
(some devices can use a non-cache-coherent PCIe mode for speed)
it's a not too uncommon use case of TTM to alloc cached pages and
transition them to write-combined (see impact below).
>
>> 2) http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/DMA-API.txt, line 33
>> makes me scared.
>> We should identify what platforms may have problems with this.
>>
> Right.. I think nobody much thought about this in context of TTM since
> that was only used on X86. I can take a look at the DMA API's of the
> other two major platforms: IA64 and PPC and see what lurks there.
>
>
>> 3) When hacking on the unichrome DMA engine it wasn't that hard to
>> use the synchronization functions of the DMA api correctly:
>>
>> When binding a TTM, the backend calls dma_map_page() on pages, When
>> unbinding, the backend calls dma_unmap_page(), If we need cpu access
>> when bound, we need to call dma_sync_single_for_[cpu|device]. If
>> this is done, it will be harder to implement user-space
>> sub-allocation, but possible. There will be a performance loss on
>> some platforms, though.
>>
> Yup. That was my other suggestion about this. But I had no idea
> where to sprinkle those 'dma_sync_single_[*]' calls, as they would
> have been done in the drivers. Probably on its DMA paths, right before
> telling the GPU to process the CP, and when receiving an interrupt
> when the CP has been completed.
>
In this case dma_sync_single_for_device() would be needed for a bo when
it was validated for a
PCI dma engine. At the same time, all user-space virtual mappings of the
buffer would need to be killed.
A dma_sync_single_for_cpu() would be needed as part of making a bo idle.
/Thomas
