On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Rob Clark [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Tom Cooksey [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

So in some respects, there is a constraint on how buffers which will
be drawn to using the GPU are allocated. I don't really like the idea
of teaching the display controller DRM driver about the GPU buffer
constraints, even if they are fairly trivial like this. If the same
display HW IP is being used on several SoCs, it seems wrong somehow
to enforce those GPU constraints if some of those SoCs don't have a
GPU.

Well, I suppose you could get min_pitch_alignment from devicetree, or
something like this..

In the end, the easy solution is just to make the display allocate to
the worst-case pitch alignment.  In the early days of dma-buf
discussions, we kicked around the idea of negotiating or
programatically describing the constraints, but that didn't really
seem like a bounded problem.

Yeah - I was around for some of those discussions and agree it's not
really an easy problem to solve.

quoted

quoted

We may also then have additional constraints when sharing buffers
between the display HW and video decode or even camera ISP HW.
Programmatically describing buffer allocation constraints is very
difficult and I'm not sure you can actually do it - there's some
pretty complex constraints out there! E.g. I believe there's a
platform where Y and UV planes of the reference frame need to be in
separate DRAM banks for real-time 1080p decode, or something like
that?

yes, this was discussed.  This is different from pitch/format/size
constraints.. it is really just a placement constraint (ie. where do
the physical pages go).  IIRC the conclusion was to use a dummy
devices with it's own CMA pool for attaching the Y vs UV buffers.

quoted

Anyway, I guess my point is that even if we solve how to allocate
buffers which will be shared between the GPU and display HW such that
both sets of constraints are satisfied, that may not be the end of
the story.

that was part of the reason to punt this problem to userspace ;-)

In practice, the kernel drivers doesn't usually know too much about
the dimensions/format/etc.. that is really userspace level knowledge.
There are a few exceptions when the kernel needs to know how to setup
GTT/etc for tiled buffers, but normally this sort of information is up
at the next level up (userspace, and drm_framebuffer in case of
scanout).  Userspace media frameworks like GStreamer already have a
concept of format/caps negotiation.  For non-display<->gpu sharing, I
think this is probably where this sort of constraint negotiation
should be handled.

I agree that user-space will know which devices will access the buffer
and thus can figure out at least a common pixel format. Though I'm not
so sure userspace can figure out more low-level details like alignment
and placement in physical memory, etc.

well, let's divide things up into two categories:

1) the arrangement and format of pixels.. ie. what userspace would
need to know if it mmap's a buffer.  This includes pixel format,
stride, etc.  This should be negotiated in userspace, it would be
crazy to try to do this in the kernel.

2) the physical placement of the pages.  Ie. whether it is contiguous
or not.  Which bank the pages in the buffer are placed in, etc.  This
is not visible to userspace.  This is the purpose of the attach step,
so you know all the devices involved in sharing up front before
allocating the backing pages.  (Or in the worst case, if you have a
"late attacher" you at least know when no device is doing dma access
to a buffer and can reallocate and move the buffer.)  A long time

One concern I know the Android folks have expressed previously (and
correct me if its no longer an objection), is that this attach time
in-kernel constraint solving / moving or reallocating buffers is
likely to hurt determinism.  If I understood, their perspective was
that userland knows the device path the buffers will travel through,
so why not leverage that knowledge, rather then having the kernel have
to sort it out for itself after the fact.

The concern about determinism even makes them hesitant about CMA, over
things like carveout, as they don't want to be moving pages around at
allocation time (which could hurt reasonable use cases like the time
it takes to launch a camera app - which is quite important). Though
maybe this concern will lessen as more CMA solutions ship.

I worry some of this split between fully general solutions vs
hard-coded known constraints is somewhat intractable. But what might
make it easier to get android folks interested in approaches like the
attach-time allocation / relocating on late-attach you're proposing is
if there is maybe some way, as you suggested, to hint the allocation
when they do know the device paths, so they can provide that insight
and can avoid *all* reallocations.

Then of course, there's the question of how to consistently hint
things for all the different driver allocation interfaces (and that,
maybe naively, leads to the central allocator approach).

thanks
-john