Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Linux Graphics Next: Explicit fences everywhere and no BO fences - initial proposal

["Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>]

Am 03.05.21 um 16:59 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
> Sorry for the top-post but there's no good thing to reply to here...
>
> One of the things pointed out to me recently by Daniel Vetter that I
> didn't fully understand before is that dma_buf has a very subtle
> second requirement beyond finite time completion:  Nothing required
> for signaling a dma-fence can allocate memory.  Why?  Because the act
> of allocating memory may wait on your dma-fence.  This, as it turns
> out, is a massively more strict requirement than finite time
> completion and, I think, throws out all of the proposals we have so
> far.
>
> Take, for instance, Marek's proposal for userspace involvement with
> dma-fence by asking the kernel for a next serial and the kernel
> trusting userspace to signal it.  That doesn't work at all if
> allocating memory to trigger a dma-fence can blow up.  There's simply
> no way for the kernel to trust userspace to not do ANYTHING which
> might allocate memory.  I don't even think there's a way userspace can
> trust itself there.  It also blows up my plan of moving the fences to
> transition boundaries.
>
> Not sure where that leaves us.

Well at least I was perfectly aware of that :)

I'm currently experimenting with some sample code which would allow 
implicit sync with user fences.

Not that I'm pushing hard into that directly, but I just want to make 
clear how simple or complex the whole thing would be.

Christian.

>
> --Jason
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 9:42 AM Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 6:27 PM Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:07 AM Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-04-28 8:59 a.m., Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 27.04.21 um 21:23 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>>>>>> Supporting interop with any device is always possible. It depends on which drivers we need to interoperate with and update them. We've already found the path forward for amdgpu. We just need to find out how many other drivers need to be updated and evaluate the cost/benefit aspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:38 PM Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com <mailto:airlied@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 22:06, Christian König
>>>>>>      <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com <mailto:ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      > Correct, we wouldn't have synchronization between device with and without user queues any more.
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      > That could only be a problem for A+I Laptops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Since I think you mentioned you'd only be enabling this on newer
>>>>>>      chipsets, won't it be a problem for A+A where one A is a generation
>>>>>>      behind the other?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Crap, that is a good point as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>>      I'm not really liking where this is going btw, seems like a ill
>>>>>>      thought out concept, if AMD is really going down the road of designing
>>>>>>      hw that is currently Linux incompatible, you are going to have to
>>>>>>      accept a big part of the burden in bringing this support in to more
>>>>>>      than just amd drivers for upcoming generations of gpu.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well we don't really like that either, but we have no other option as far as I can see.
>>>> I don't really understand what "future hw may remove support for kernel queues" means exactly. While the per-context queues can be mapped to userspace directly, they don't *have* to be, do they? I.e. the kernel driver should be able to either intercept userspace access to the queues, or in the worst case do it all itself, and provide the existing synchronization semantics as needed?
>>>>
>>>> Surely there are resource limits for the per-context queues, so the kernel driver needs to do some kind of virtualization / multi-plexing anyway, or we'll get sad user faces when there's no queue available for <current hot game>.
>>>>
>>>> I'm probably missing something though, awaiting enlightenment. :)
>>>
>>> The hw interface for userspace is that the ring buffer is mapped to the process address space alongside a doorbell aperture (4K page) that isn't real memory, but when the CPU writes into it, it tells the hw scheduler that there are new GPU commands in the ring buffer. Userspace inserts all the wait, draw, and signal commands into the ring buffer and then "rings" the doorbell. It's my understanding that the ring buffer and the doorbell are always mapped in the same GPU address space as the process, which makes it very difficult to emulate the current protected ring buffers in the kernel. The VMID of the ring buffer is also not changeable.
>>>
>> The doorbell does not have to be mapped into the process's GPU virtual
>> address space.  The CPU could write to it directly.  Mapping it into
>> the GPU's virtual address space would allow you to have a device kick
>> off work however rather than the CPU.  E.g., the GPU could kick off
>> it's own work or multiple devices could kick off work without CPU
>> involvement.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>> The hw scheduler doesn't do any synchronization and it doesn't see any dependencies. It only chooses which queue to execute, so it's really just a simple queue manager handling the virtualization aspect and not much else.
>>>
>>> Marek
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> mesa-dev mailing list
>> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel