2015-02-03 13:28 GMT+01:00 Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref]:

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 08:48:56AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:30:21PM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Vetter [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

My initial thought is for dma-buf to not try to prevent something than
an exporter can actually do.. I think the scenario you describe could
be handled by two sg-lists, if the exporter was clever enough.

That's already needed, each attachment has it's own sg-list. After all
there's no array of dma_addr_t in the sg tables, so you can't use one sg
for more than one mapping. And due to different iommu different devices
can easily end up with different addresses.

Well, to be fair it may not be explicitly stated, but currently one
should assume the dma_addr_t's in the dmabuf sglist are bogus.  With
gpu's that implement per-process/context page tables, I'm not really
sure that there is a sane way to actually do anything else..

Hm, what does per-process/context page tables have to do here? At least on
i915 we have a two levels of page tables:
- first level for vm/device isolation, used through dma api
- 2nd level for per-gpu-context isolation and context switching, handled
  internally.

Since atm the dma api doesn't have any context of contexts or different
pagetables, I don't see who you could use that at all.

What I've found with *my* etnaviv drm implementation (not Christian's - I
found it impossible to work with Christian, especially with the endless
"msm doesn't do it that way, so we shouldn't" responses and his attitude
towards cherry-picking my development work [*]) is that it's much easier to
keep the GPU MMU local to the GPU and under the control of the DRM MM code,
rather than attaching the IOMMU to the DMA API and handling it that way.

Keep in mind that I tried to reach you several times via mail and irc
and you simply
ignored me. Did you know that took almost all of your patches (with
small changes)?
And I needed to cherry pick you patches as they were a) wrong, b) solved in a
different way or c) had "hack" in the subject. I am quite sorry that I
ended that
way, but it is not only my fault!

There are several reasons for that:

1. DRM has a better idea about when the memory needs to be mapped to the
   GPU, and it can more effectively manage the GPU MMU.

2. The GPU MMU may have TLBs which can only be flushed via a command in
   the GPU command stream, so it's fundamentally necessary for the MMU to
   be managed by the GPU driver so that it knows when (and how) to insert
   the flushes.


* - as a direct result of that, I've stopped all further development of
etnaviv drm, and I'm intending to strip it out from my Xorg DDX driver
as the etnaviv drm API which Christian wants is completely incompatible
with the non-etnaviv drm, and that just creates far too much pain in the
DDX driver.

That is bad, but life moves on.

greets
--
Christian Gmeiner, MSc

https://soundcloud.com/christian-gmeiner