On 8/28/26 10:31, SHANMUGAM, SRINIVASAN wrote:
> AMD General
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig(a)amd.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 1:48 PM
>> To: SHANMUGAM, SRINIVASAN <SRINIVASAN.SHANMUGAM(a)amd.com>;
>> Matthew Brost <matthew.brost(a)intel.com>
>> Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher(a)amd.com>; Maarten Lankhorst
>> <maarten.lankhorst(a)linux.intel.com>; Maxime Ripard <mripard(a)kernel.org>;
>> Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann(a)suse.de>; David Airlie
>> <airlied(a)gmail.com>; Simona Vetter <simona(a)ffwll.ch>; Sumit Semwal
>> <sumit.semwal(a)linaro.org>; Thomas Hellström
>> <thomas.hellstrom(a)linux.intel.com>; dri-devel(a)lists.freedesktop.org; intel-
>> xe(a)lists.freedesktop.org; linux-media(a)vger.kernel.org; linaro-mm-
>> sig(a)lists.linaro.org; linux-kernel(a)vger.kernel.org; amd-gfx(a)lists.freedesktop.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] drm: Add common drm_user_fence helper
>>
>> On 8/28/26 10:06, SHANMUGAM, SRINIVASAN wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * struct drm_user_fence - embeddable DRM user fence
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Drivers embed this in their own structure and implement
>>>>> + * &drm_user_fence_ops. Call drm_user_fence_init() at creation and
>>>>> + * drm_user_fence_add_callback() to arm on a dma-fence.
>>>>> + * Call drm_user_fence_cancel_sync() before driver teardown.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +struct drm_user_fence {
>>>>
>>>> Should this common layer be split into two distinct concepts?
>>>>
>>>> - drm_work_fence: 90% of what is here, minus the kthread_use_mm() and
>>>> mm-related code.
>>>> - drm_user_fence: a subclass of drm_work_fence that adds the
>>>> kthread_use_mm() and mm-related code.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest this because I was thinking about it the other day (I
>>>> forget the exact
>>>> context) and reconsidered a pattern where a fence signals and then I
>>>> need a worker because some work must be done outside of IRQ context.
>>>> A user fence is one example, since copy_to_user() can fault, which is
>>>> not allowed in IRQ context. At various times in Xe we've had multiple
>>>> patterns like this, although at the moment user fences are probably
>>>> the only case that requires it. If we looked across DRM as a whole, I suspect
>> we'd find this pattern open-coded in a number of places.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, drm_user_fence would be a very thin layer on top of
>>>> drm_work_fence, but I still see value in the split.
>>>
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the review and for being supportive of the idea.
>>>
>>> The split into drm_work_fence (general fence-to-workqueue pattern) and
>>> drm_user_fence (subclass adding kthread_use_mm) makes sense. I'll
>>> restructure v5 as follows:
>>>
>>> drm_work_fence: kref, work_struct, dma_fence_cb, stored fence ref,
>>> wq, ops — add_callback, cancel, cancel_sync
>>
>> Yeah, this pattern came up so often that I already considered adding it to the core
>> dma_fence framework.
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> On dma_fence_work: would you prefer I place the generic fence-to-work
> helper directly in the core dma_fence framework (drivers/dma-buf/),
> or is starting with drm_work_fence in DRM and promoting it later also
> acceptable?
Maybe ask AI to search for use cases. If you find something outside of drivers/gpu/drm then please place it under drivers/dma-buf.
If you don't find any existing use case drivers/gpu/drm should do as well.
Thanks,
Christian.
>
> I'll add the value comparison logic and will add a clear note that this cannot be
> used to implement dma_fence_ops.
>
> Thanks,
> Srini
On 8/28/26 10:06, SHANMUGAM, SRINIVASAN wrote:
...
>>> +/**
>>> + * struct drm_user_fence - embeddable DRM user fence
>>> + *
>>> + * Drivers embed this in their own structure and implement
>>> + * &drm_user_fence_ops. Call drm_user_fence_init() at creation and
>>> + * drm_user_fence_add_callback() to arm on a dma-fence.
>>> + * Call drm_user_fence_cancel_sync() before driver teardown.
>>> + */
>>> +struct drm_user_fence {
>>
>> Should this common layer be split into two distinct concepts?
>>
>> - drm_work_fence: 90% of what is here, minus the kthread_use_mm() and
>> mm-related code.
>> - drm_user_fence: a subclass of drm_work_fence that adds the
>> kthread_use_mm() and mm-related code.
>>
>> I suggest this because I was thinking about it the other day (I forget the exact
>> context) and reconsidered a pattern where a fence signals and then I need a worker
>> because some work must be done outside of IRQ context. A user fence is one
>> example, since copy_to_user() can fault, which is not allowed in IRQ context. At
>> various times in Xe we've had multiple patterns like this, although at the moment
>> user fences are probably the only case that requires it. If we looked across DRM as
>> a whole, I suspect we'd find this pattern open-coded in a number of places.
>>
>> Yes, drm_user_fence would be a very thin layer on top of drm_work_fence, but I still
>> see value in the split.
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for the review and for being supportive of the idea.
>
> The split into drm_work_fence (general fence-to-workqueue pattern) and
> drm_user_fence (subclass adding kthread_use_mm) makes sense. I'll
> restructure v5 as follows:
>
> drm_work_fence: kref, work_struct, dma_fence_cb, stored fence ref,
> wq, ops — add_callback, cancel, cancel_sync
Yeah, this pattern came up so often that I already considered adding it to the core dma_fence framework.
So if you feel really brave make that a dma_fence_work helper. If I'm not completely mistaken AI should be able to find quite a number of use cases for that already.
>
> drm_user_fence: embeds drm_work_fence, adds mm_struct and the
> kthread_use_mm/mmput boilerplate, thin wrappers
>
> XE will continue to use drm_user_fence. For AMDGPU, The long-term
> per-signal filtering approach (reading the fence value via copy_from_user
> before signaling) will use drm_user_fence — further validating both
> layers of the split.
It would be really nice if we could move those compare functionality (>, <, !=, == etc...) XE has for the user value into the drm_user_fence handling as well.
We also need to add a heck of documentation that while this is able to consume dma_fences it *CAN'T* be used to implement dma_fence_ops. I had more than enough headache because of that.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> Regarding the CI failure — the root cause was a missing trailing newline
> at the end of xe_sync_types.h which caused the kunit build to fail with
> "unterminated #ifndef". I've set up kunit locally and confirmed the fix:
>
> Testing complete. Ran 588 tests: passed: 570, skipped: 18
> Elapsed time: 22.916s total, 3.949s configuring, 18.350s building,
> 0.601s running
>
> The 18 skipped tests require Intel hardware — expected. The CI fix will
> be included in v5 along with the drm_work_fence restructuring.
>
> Thanks,
> Srini
>
>>
>> Matt
DMA-buf lets an exporter pin, move or revoke the backing storage under
an importer, and which of the three applies is decided by the optional
callbacks each side implements and by whether dma_buf_pin() succeeds.
Nothing in Documentation/ describes that, and the single reference to
the mechanism still names move_notify(), removed in v7.1.
Thanks
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro(a)nvidia.com>
---
Leon Romanovsky (2):
PCI/P2PDMA: Update DMABUF lifecycle docs after move_notify() rename
dma-buf: Document how exporters and importers agree on mapping lifetime
Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst | 6 +++
Documentation/driver-api/pci/p2pdma.rst | 6 ++-
drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 8049741ac93acd3a590dac070e12571fddf0e294
change-id: 20260820-document-dma-buf-3f8b41e32f57
Best regards,
--
Leon Romanovsky <leonro(a)nvidia.com>
On 8/13/26 09:46, Taimuraz Kaitmazov wrote:
> amdxdna_gem_obj_vmap() takes whatever dma_buf_vmap() returns and only
> rejects a NULL vaddr. iosys_map is discriminated by is_iomem, so an
> exporter answering with an I/O mapping leaves a void __iomem pointer in
> abo->mem.kva, which amdxdna_cmd_set_error() memsets and memcpys through.
>
> amdxdna_drm_va_tbl takes a dmabuf_fd, so such a BO can be any exporter's
> buffer. amdgpu cannot reach this: its .pin forces GTT for a non peer to
> peer attachment like ours. An exporter on drm_gem_prime_dmabuf_ops has
> no .pin, and drm_gem_ttm_vmap() answers iomem for a VRAM resident
> object, so an NPU paired with nouveau or radeon does.
>
> Refuse the mapping. vmw_gem_vmap() does the same; unlike that one this
> path is reachable from an unprivileged ioctl, so it does not warn.
>
> Signed-off-by: Taimuraz Kaitmazov <taimuraz(a)kaitmazov.com>
> ---
> drivers/accel/amdxdna/amdxdna_gem.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/accel/amdxdna/amdxdna_gem.c b/drivers/accel/amdxdna/amdxdna_gem.c
> index 1f190b319bb..b66ec9e4828 100644
> --- a/drivers/accel/amdxdna/amdxdna_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/accel/amdxdna/amdxdna_gem.c
> @@ -683,10 +683,16 @@ static int amdxdna_gem_obj_vmap(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct iosys_map *ma
>
> dma_resv_assert_held(obj->resv);
>
> - if (is_import_bo(abo))
> + if (is_import_bo(abo)) {
> ret = dma_buf_vmap(abo->dma_buf, map);
> - else
> + /* Callers use mem.kva as an ordinary kernel address. */
> + if (!ret && map->is_iomem) {
> + dma_buf_vunmap(abo->dma_buf, map);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
Thanks for the fix. The 'is_iomem' check should be moved to
amdxdna_gem_vmap() to cover all the cases.
Lizhi
> + } else {
> ret = drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap(obj, map);
> + }
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> if (!map->vaddr)
On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 03:10:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> >> As the saying goes, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but in the end
> >> taking care of two dogs is likely harder than only a single dog? :)
> >
> > Or it's better to train a unmatured hunting dog than to teach a pet dog,
> > how to hunt, for better hunting, even though the pet dog might
> > eventually become able to.
>
> I'm not sure whether "pet dog" is the right analogy to lockdep in that scenario,
> though ;)
Ah. Okay. I will be careful in using terms.
I wanted to tell DEPT has its strength, lockdep has its own, and they
are different.
Byungchul
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David
On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 07:48:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2026, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > Exactly. That's why we use classification e.g. lock class - DEPT also
> > > makes use of the concept.
> > >
> > > DEPT doesn't use a full map in each page but uses a minimum space for a
> > > timestamp in each to track when each starts to wait so as to use the
> > > recorded timestamp when the event occurs e.g. folio_unlock().
> >
> > Thanks for that information!
> >
> > >
> > >> Given that lockdep is a debug feature, and we will at some point allocate struct
> > >> folio separately, I assume we could just squeeze a "struct lockdep_map" in there
> > >> in such debug configs and the world would not collapse.
> > >
> > > That's a good news for lockdep. (And even for DEPT :)
> >
> > He :) Where do you currently store the additional per-page information?
>
> lockdep doesn't need to store per-page information. Possibly DEPT
> doesn't either.
Class can be stored in global map, but DEPT needs to keep a timestamp
in each page to track when a potential-wait e.g. folio_lock() has been
started and to refer to the information on its event e.g. folio_unlock().
> lockdep needs one lockdep_map for each lock class. It would make sense
> for all folio locks to use the same global lockdep_map.
Exactly. Only considering classes, you are right.
> Each specific lock is known to lockdep as a task which holds the lock, a
> lockdep_map which represents the class of locks, and subclass number
> which allows a given task to hold multiple locks of the same class
> providing it declare (e.g. with spin_lock_nested() etc).
Right, lockdep works that way.
> > >> Doing that today (one "struct lockdep_map" in each "struct page") wouldn't work
> > >> as mm_zero_struct_page() would not expect such large "struct page". But
> > >> conceptually, for a debug kernel with a special CONFIG_LOCKDEP_PAGE_LOCK, maybe
> > >> that would already be ok and we could just do that (and optimize it as we
> > >> allocate folios separately).
> > >
> > > Sounds great.
> > >
> > >> Not that it's ideal, but for a debug feature to at least check PG_lock, probably
> > >> an easier way to achieve it than some completely new infrastructure.
> > >
> > > I understand what you are going to tell.
> > >
> > > However, it's worth noting that lockdep tracks dependencies basically
> > > based on **lock acqusition orders** in the system. To make it track
> > > even rwlock and general synchronization mechanism as well, lockdep has
> > > no choice but to get more complicated.
> >
> > Well, yes, sure :)
> >
> > >
> > > Focusing on only the dependency checking, the most parts of lockdep are
> > > for the tricky things, so the reusable parts are not that big.
> > >
> > >> Now, Willy said "locking rules don't really apply to individual folios", I
> > >> wonder if that could just help to also let lockdep check PG_lock with less
> > >> metadata? (didn't fully wrap my head around the implications)
> > >
> > > That's what DEPT did and what brought external wgen introduced in DEPT.
> > > I was considering the exactly same thing :)
> > >
> > > Again, lockdep that tracks lock acquisition orders can't do that.
> > >
> > >> [1]
> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/aR3WHf9QZ_dizNun@casper.infradead.org/?utm_sour…
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It's your guiding example, that's why I mention it. You do mention other wait
> > >> cases here, I don't know anything about them, but for folios it's really just
> > >> "we used a single bit so far" AFAIKs.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter whether it's implemented using bit or not. folio lock
> > > is quite special since it's allowed to be released other than the
> > > acquisition context that makes lockdep impossible to track them.
> >
> > Does that really make lockdep *impossible* to track them? IOW, there is no way
> > to extend lockdep to support lock release in different context?
>
> Yes and no....
>
> lockdep has no knowledge of control flows moving across threads in the
> way that I assume DEPT does. But it should be possible to tell it.
>
> If you have some code that takes a lock and then hands it off to
> another thread, at the hand-off point you call
> lock_map_release(&the_lock_map)
>
> This says "no task owns this lock any more".
>
> maybe you put the folio which is locked on a queue or an lru or
> whatever.
>
> There is no way to say "that queue owns this lock". Maybe that could
> usefully be added - assuming coherent semantics can be designed.
It's certainly useful to track who owns the lock, but the essence, when
it comes to deadlock detection, lies elsewhere. DEPT is based on the
essence, that is, a deadlock comes from waits that are never awakened.
> Somewhere else some other task takes responsibility for that folio and
> the lock. maybe it dequeues a page, or maybe an lru callback gives the
> locked page to some code.
> That code then calls
> lock_map_acquire_try(&the_lock_map)
>
> This says "this task is now holding this lock" (or more accurately "now
> holding a lock of this class").
> Note the "_try" - that says that the task didn't have to wait for the
> lock, it just got it for free, which in fact it did.
>
> Now if that task takes some other lock, lockdep will see a dependency
> between the page lock and the new lock, and will accept or reject it as
> you would expect.
It's an interesting approach if your goal is to track the owenership,
but if the goal is for tracking dependencies.. well.. I'm not sure.
Byungchul
> So you definitely *can* send lock dependency information between tasks
> with lockdep. I have only tried it in extremely simple cases where a
> single object is being locked by one task and unlocked by another - no
> queues or lists.
> There may be - and probably are - more complexities involved with
> locking folios and passing them around. Maybe it is so complex that you
> need all the support that DEPT provides. But I'd like to see a coherent
> explanation of how the functionality offered by DEPT is clearly better.
>
> NeilBrown
>
> >
> > I guess there is a way, but the question is at which price (I seriously have no
> > idea, maybe this was already discussed and people have a pointer for me).
> >
> > >
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Q. Why not build DEPT into lockdep?
> > >>>
> > >>> A. Lockdep is stable, battle-tested code. I chose separation because
> > >>> while DEPT borrows BFS and hashing ideas, the wait/event model
> > >>> requires rebuilding from scratch. Lockdep was designed for lock
> > >>> acquisition order — retrofitting it would risk its stability.
> > >>
> > >> Why can't this just be some configurable extension to lockdep
> > >> (CONFIG_LOCKDEP_XYZ) until the feature is stable and can unconditionally be
> > >> enabled along with it?
> > >
> > > Answered?
> >
> > Not quite. I don't understand why this must be a completely separate machinery,
> > even if, conceptually, it would do more than traditional lockdep.
> >
> > Is it either DEPT or LOCKDEP in current configurations? Can both run at the same
> > time?
> >
> > >
> > >> I don't quite buy the "would risk its stability" argument. A lot of stuff we do
> > >> "risks stability", every day :)
> > >
> > > That's awsome anyway :)
> > >
> > >> Is there another good reason (incompatible with X, dangerous with Y, cinfusing
> > >> Z) why this really must be a separate thing?
> > >
> > > Roughly:
> > >
> > > 1. Similar or less effort is needed for the new one - retrofitting
> > > lockdep is not easy and big changes are required since the
> > > reusable parts are not that big.
> > >
> > > 2. Even though you didn't agree, retrofitting it would risk its
> > > stability.
> >
> > Well, I don't buy the stability argument, really :)
> >
> > Retrofitting effort for lockdep is an interesting point, though. Lockdep
> > maintainers would have to make the call here regarding direction and feasibility.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> But I am not a locking maintainer. I think there was plenty of discussion in the
> > >> past, so I might just be raising points that were already discussed in the past,
> > >> but I really just read some random pieces of earlier discussions. (ideally
> > >> previous discussions would be summarized here)
> > >>
> > >> Long story short: we are now in v19 and I think there was pushback in the past.
> > >> Did the opinion of locking maintainers change, or is there a way forward to
> > >> integrate this in a way that would make locking maintainers accept this?
> > >
> > > One of locking maintainers who I met in an LPC told me that he agrees
> > > with the direction of DEPT and supports DEPT, not officially tho.
> >
> > Hm.
> >
> > >
> > > What he and other people are concerning w.r.t DEPT the most is, false
> > > positives, which is the most important issue for now.
> >
> > Thanks for highlighting that. What's the main reason for false positives? Is it
> > something conceptual that is mostly impossible to solve, or rather just
> > implementation work to cover all edge cases?
> >
> > >
> > > At the same time, I think the most important thing is to make DEPT
> > > useful in practice especially with folio locks involved. Actually, I'm
> > > planning to share DEPT's true reports periodically to LKML and work with
> > > people who believe DEPT can make things better.
> > >
> > > Any advices will be welcome. Thanks for your opinions.
> >
> > I think we must come to some conclusion on how to proceed with DEPT. I see the
> > following options:
> >
> > (1) Don't merge it and carry it OOT. Shame if it delivers real value.
> >
> > (2) Merge it (after proper review and acks from relevant maintainers ;) ),
> > keeping it entirely separate from lockdep.
> >
> > (3) Integrate it with lockdep on a high level, giving us a single locking
> > dependency checker, but mostly letting dept have a separate implementation.
> > Look into possible merging afterwards.
> >
> > (4) Retrofit and extend lockdep to really have one mechanism.
> >
> > As the saying goes, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but in the end
> > taking care of two dogs is likely harder than only a single dog? :)
> >
> > I tend to favor (4) (or 3 with possible future work to achieve 4), but I am not
> > a locking maintainer, so really they have to voice what to do.
> >
> > I do see value in DEPT (even if the folio lock might be handled differently).
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
> >
>
On 20.08.2026 20:04, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> /* This part must be outside protection */> diff --git a/mm/cma.c b/mm/cma.c
>> index a10ea37a261d..1e1ebae79090 100644
>> --- a/mm/cma.c
>> +++ b/mm/cma.c
>> @@ -936,6 +936,141 @@ struct page *cma_alloc_frozen_compound(struct cma *cma, unsigned int order)
>> return __cma_alloc_frozen(cma, 1 << order, order, gfp);
>> }
>> +static int cma_range_alloc_at(struct cma *cma, struct cma_memrange *cmr,
>> + unsigned long offset, unsigned long count,
>> + struct page **pagep, gfp_t gfp)
>> +{
>> + struct page *page = NULL;
>> + unsigned long pfn;
>> + int ret = -EBUSY;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irq(&cma->lock);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If the request is larger than the available number of pages, stop
>> + * right away.
>> + */
>> + if (count > cma->available_count)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + ret = bitmap_allocate(cmr->bitmap, offset, count);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + pfn = cmr->base_pfn + offset;
>> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Do not hand out page ranges that are not contiguous, so
>> + * callers can just iterate the pages without having to worry
>> + * about these corner cases.
>> + */
>> + if (!page_range_contiguous(page, count)) {
>> + pr_warn_ratelimited("%s: %s: skipping non-contiguous area [0x%lx-0x%lx]",
>> + __func__, cma->name, pfn, pfn + count - 1);
>> + ret = -EBUSY;
>> + goto clear;
>> + }
>> +
>> + cma->available_count -= count;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * It's safe to drop the lock here. We've marked this region for
>> + * our exclusive use. If the migration fails we will take the
>> + * lock again and unmark it.
>> + */
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&cma->lock);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&cma->alloc_mutex);
>> + ret = alloc_contig_frozen_range(pfn, pfn + count, ACR_FLAGS_CMA, gfp);
>> + mutex_unlock(&cma->alloc_mutex);
>> +
> There is quite some code duplication with cma_range_alloc(). Please try harder
> to factor common code out and reuse it.
>
>
> > ...
> Also here, way too much code duplication with __cma_alloc_frozen().
>
> There must be a better way :)
Maybe the existing 'alloc' functions could call 'alloc_at' variant internally
(with locks adjusted and moved out).
> (I really prefer this direction of the patch set)
Definitely, I also like this approach much more than previous attempt with
'dynamically' instantiated cma regions.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland