On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Cooksey tom.cooksey@arm.com wrote:
... 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 back, I had a patch that added a field or two to 'struct device_dma_parameters' so that it could be known if a device required contiguous buffers.. looks like that never got merged, so I'd need to dig that back up and resend it. But the idea was to have the 'struct device' encapsulate all the information that would be needed to do-the-right-thing when it comes to placement.
As I understand it, it's up to the exporting device to allocate the memory backing the dma_buf buffer. I guess the latest possible point you can allocate the backing pages is when map_dma_buf is first called? At that point the exporter can iterate over the current set of attachments, programmatically determine the all the constraints of all the attached drivers and attempt to allocate the backing pages in such a way as to satisfy all those constraints?
yes, this is the idea.. possibly some room for some helpers to help out with this, but that is all under the hood from userspace perspective
Didn't you say that programmatically describing device placement constraints was an unbounded problem? I guess we would have to accept that it's not possible to describe all possible constraints and instead find a way to describe the common ones?
well, the point I'm trying to make, is by dividing your constraints into two groups, one that impacts and is handled by userspace, and one that is in the kernel (ie. where the pages go), you cut down the number of permutations that the kernel has to care about considerably. And kernel already cares about, for example, what range of addresses that a device can dma to/from. I think really the only thing missing is the max # of sglist entries (contiguous or not)
I think it's more than physically contiguous or not.
For example, it can be more efficient to use large page sizes on devices with IOMMUs to reduce TLB traffic. I think the size and even the availability of large pages varies between different IOMMUs.
sure.. but I suppose if we can spiff out dma_params to express "I need contiguous", perhaps we can add some way to express "I prefer as-contiguous-as-possible".. either way, this is about where the pages are placed, and not about the layout of pixels within the page, so should be in kernel. It's something that is missing, but I believe that it belongs in dma_params and hidden behind dma_alloc_*() for simple drivers.
There's also the issue of buffer stride alignment. As I say, if the buffer is to be written by a tile-based GPU like Mali, it's more efficient if the buffer's stride is aligned to the max AXI bus burst length. Though I guess a buffer stride only makes sense as a concept when interpreting the data as a linear-layout 2D image, so perhaps belongs in user-space along with format negotiation?
Yeah.. this isn't about where the pages go, but about the arrangement within a page.
And, well, except for hw that supports the same tiling (or compressed-fb) in display+gpu, you probably aren't sharing tiled buffers.
One problem with this is it duplicates a lot of logic in each driver which can export a dma_buf buffer. Each exporter will need to do pretty much the same thing: iterate over all the attachments, determine of all the constraints (assuming that can be done) and allocate pages such that the lowest-common-denominator is satisfied.
Perhaps rather than duplicating that logic in every driver, we could Instead move allocation of the backing pages into dma_buf itself?
I tend to think it is better to add helpers as we see common patterns emerge, which drivers can opt-in to using. I don't think that we should move allocation into dma_buf itself, but it would perhaps be useful to have dma_alloc_*() variants that could allocate for multiple devices.
A helper could work I guess, though I quite like the idea of having dma_alloc_*() variants which take a list of devices to allocate memory for.
That would help for simple stuff, although I'd suspect eventually a GPU driver will move away from that. (Since you probably want to play tricks w/ pools of pages that are pre-zero'd and in the correct cache state, use spare cycles on the gpu or dma engine to pre-zero uncached pages, and games like that.)
So presumably you're talking about a GPU driver being the exporter here? If so, how could the GPU driver do these kind of tricks on memory shared with another device?
Yes, that is gpu-as-exporter. If someone else is allocating buffers, it is up to them to do these tricks or not. Probably there is a pretty good chance that if you aren't a GPU you don't need those sort of tricks for fast allocation of transient upload buffers, staging textures, temporary pixmaps, etc. Ie. I don't really think a v4l camera or video decoder would benefit from that sort of optimization.
Anyway, assuming user-space can figure out how a buffer should be stored in memory, how does it indicate this to a kernel driver and actually allocate it? Which ioctl on which device does user-space call, with what parameters? Are you suggesting using something like ION which exposes the low-level details of how buffers are laid out in physical memory to userspace? If not, what?
no, userspace should not need to know this. And having a central driver that knows this for all the other drivers in the system doesn't really solve anything and isn't really scalable. At best you might want, in some cases, a flag you can pass when allocating. For example, some of the drivers have a 'SCANOUT' flag that can be passed when allocating a GEM buffer, as a hint to the kernel that 'if this hw requires contig memory for scanout, allocate this buffer contig'. But really, when it comes to sharing buffers between devices, we want this sort of information in dev->dma_params of the importing device(s).
If you had a single driver which knew the constraints of all devices on that particular SoC and the interface allowed user-space to specify which devices a buffer is intended to be used with, I guess it could pretty trivially allocate pages which satisfy those
constraints?
keep in mind, even a number of SoC's come with pcie these days. You already have things like
https://developer.nvidia.com/content/kayla-platform
You probably want to get out of the SoC mindset, otherwise you are going to make bad assumptions that come back to bite you later on.
Sure - there are always going to be PC-like devices where the hardware configuration isn't fixed like it is on a traditional SoC. But I'd rather have a simple solution which works on traditional SoCs than no solution at all. Today our solution is to over-load the dumb buffer alloc functions of the display's DRM driver - For now I'm just looking for the next step up from that! ;-)
True.. the original intention, which is perhaps a bit desktop-centric, really was for there to be a userspace component talking to the drm driver for allocation, ie. xf86-video-foo and/or src/gallium/drivers/foo (for example) ;-)
Which means for x11 having a SoC vendor specific xf86-video-foo for x11.. or vendor specific gbm implementation for wayland. (Although at least in the latter case it is a pretty small piece of code.) But that is probably what you are trying to avoid.
At any rate, for both xorg and wayland/gbm, you know when a buffer is going to be a scanout buffer. What I'd recommend is define a small userspace API that your customers (the SoC vendors) implement to allocate a scanout buffer and hand you back a dmabuf fd. That could be used both for x11 and for gbm. Inputs should be requested width/height and format. And outputs pitch plus dmabuf fd.
(Actually you might even just want to use gbm as your starting point. You could probably just use gbm from xf86-video-armsoc for allocation, to have one thing that works for both wayland and x11. Scanout and cursor buffers should go to vendor/SoC specific fxn, rest can be allocated from mali kernel driver.)
wouldn't need a way to programmatically describe the constraints either: As you say, if userspace sets the "SCANOUT" flag, it would just "know" that on this SoC, that buffer needs to be physically contiguous for example.
not really.. it just knows it wants to scanout the buffer, and tells this as a hint to the kernel.
For example, on omapdrm, the SCANOUT flag does nothing on omap4+ (where phys contig is not required for scanout), but causes CMA (dma_alloc_*()) to be used on omap3. Userspace doesn't care. It just knows that it wants to be able to scanout that particular buffer.
I think that's the idea? The omap3's allocator driver would use contiguous memory when it detects the SCANOUT flag whereas the omap4 allocator driver wouldn't have to. No complex negotiation of constraints - it just "knows".
well, it is same allocating driver in both cases (although maybe that is unimportant). The "it" that just knows it wants to scanout is userspace. The "it" that just knows that scanout translates to contiguous (or not) is the kernel. Perhaps we are saying the same thing ;-)
BR, -R
Cheers,
Tom
Didn't you say that programmatically describing device placement constraints was an unbounded problem? I guess we would have to accept that it's not possible to describe all possible constraints and instead find a way to describe the common ones?
well, the point I'm trying to make, is by dividing your constraints into two groups, one that impacts and is handled by userspace, and one that is in the kernel (ie. where the pages go), you cut down the number of permutations that the kernel has to care about considerably. And kernel already cares about, for example, what range of addresses that a device can dma to/from. I think really the only thing missing is the max # of sglist entries (contiguous or not)
I think it's more than physically contiguous or not.
For example, it can be more efficient to use large page sizes on devices with IOMMUs to reduce TLB traffic. I think the size and even the availability of large pages varies between different IOMMUs.
sure.. but I suppose if we can spiff out dma_params to express "I need contiguous", perhaps we can add some way to express "I prefer as-contiguous-as-possible".. either way, this is about where the pages are placed, and not about the layout of pixels within the page, so should be in kernel. It's something that is missing, but I believe that it belongs in dma_params and hidden behind dma_alloc_*() for simple drivers.
Thinking about it, isn't this more a property of the IOMMU? I mean, are there any cases where an IOMMU had a large page mode but you wouldn't want to use it? So when allocating the memory, you'd have to take into account not just the constraints of the devices themselves, but also of any IOMMUs any of the device sit behind?
There's also the issue of buffer stride alignment. As I say, if the buffer is to be written by a tile-based GPU like Mali, it's more efficient if the buffer's stride is aligned to the max AXI bus burst length. Though I guess a buffer stride only makes sense as a concept when interpreting the data as a linear-layout 2D image, so perhaps belongs in user-space along with format negotiation?
Yeah.. this isn't about where the pages go, but about the arrangement within a page.
And, well, except for hw that supports the same tiling (or compressed-fb) in display+gpu, you probably aren't sharing tiled buffers.
You'd only want to share a buffer between devices if those devices can understand the same pixel format. That pixel format can't be device- specific or opaque, it has to be explicit. I think drm_fourcc.h is what defines all the possible pixel formats. This is the enum I used in EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import at least. So if we get to the point where multiple devices can understand a tiled or compressed format, I assume we could just add that format to drm_fourcc.h and possibly v4l2's v4l2_mbus_pixelcode enum in v4l2-mediabus.h.
For user-space to negotiate a common pixel format and now stride alignment, I guess it will obviously need a way to query what pixel formats a device supports and what its stride alignment requirements are.
I don't know v4l2 very well, but it certainly seems the pixel format can be queried using V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY when attempting to set a particular format. I couldn't however find a way to retrieve a list of supported formats - it seems the mechanism is to try out each format in turn to determine if it is supported. Is that right?
There doesn't however seem a way to query what stride constraints a V4l2 device might have. Does HW abstracted by v4l2 typically have such constraints? If so, how can we query them such that a buffer allocated by a DRM driver can be imported into v4l2 and used with that HW?
Turning to DRM/KMS, it seems the supported formats of a plane can be queried using drm_mode_get_plane. However, there doesn't seem to be a way to query the supported formats of a crtc? If display HW only supports scanning out from a single buffer (like pl111 does), I think it won't have any planes and a fb can only be set on the crtc. In which case, how should user-space query which pixel formats that crtc supports?
Assuming user-space can query the supported formats and find a common one, it will need to allocate a buffer. Looks like drm_mode_create_dumb can do that, but it only takes a bpp parameter, there's no format parameter. I assume then that user-space defines the format and tells the DRM driver which format the buffer is in when creating the fb with drm_mode_fb_cmd2, which does take a format parameter? Is that right?
As with v4l2, DRM doesn't appear to have a way to query the stride constraints? Assuming there is a way to query the stride constraints, there also isn't a way to specify them when creating a buffer with DRM, though perhaps the existing pitch parameter of drm_mode_create_dumb could be used to allow user-space to pass in a minimum stride as well as receive the allocated stride?
One problem with this is it duplicates a lot of logic in each driver which can export a dma_buf buffer. Each exporter will need to do pretty much the same thing: iterate over all the attachments, determine of all the constraints (assuming that can be done) and allocate pages such that the lowest-common- denominator is satisfied. Perhaps rather than duplicating that logic in every driver, we could instead move allocation of the backing pages into dma_buf itself?
I tend to think it is better to add helpers as we see common
patterns emerge, which drivers can opt-in to using. I don't think that we should move allocation into dma_buf itself, but it would perhaps be useful to have dma_alloc_*() variants that could allocate for multiple devices.
A helper could work I guess, though I quite like the idea of having dma_alloc_*() variants which take a list of devices to allocate memory for.
That would help for simple stuff, although I'd suspect eventually a GPU driver will move away from that. (Since you probably want to play tricks w/ pools of pages that are pre-zero'd and in the correct cache state, use spare cycles on the gpu or dma engine to pre-zero uncached pages, and games like that.)
So presumably you're talking about a GPU driver being the exporter here? If so, how could the GPU driver do these kind of tricks on memory shared with another device?
Yes, that is gpu-as-exporter. If someone else is allocating buffers, it is up to them to do these tricks or not. Probably there is a pretty good chance that if you aren't a GPU you don't need those sort of tricks for fast allocation of transient upload buffers, staging textures, temporary pixmaps, etc. Ie. I don't really think a v4l camera or video decoder would benefit from that sort of optimization.
Right - but none of those are really buffers you'd want to export with dma_buf to share with another device are they? In which case, why not just have dma_buf figure out the constraints and allocate the memory?
If a driver needs to allocate memory in a special way for a particular device, I can't really imagine how it would be able to share that buffer with another device using dma_buf? I guess a driver is likely to need some magic voodoo to configure access to the buffer for its device, but surely that would be done by the dma_mapping framework when dma_buf_map happens?
You probably want to get out of the SoC mindset, otherwise you are going to make bad assumptions that come back to bite you later on.
Sure - there are always going to be PC-like devices where the hardware configuration isn't fixed like it is on a traditional SoC. But I'd rather have a simple solution which works on traditional SoCs than no solution at all. Today our solution is to over-load the dumb buffer alloc functions of the display's DRM driver - For now I'm just looking for the next step up from that! ;-)
True.. the original intention, which is perhaps a bit desktop-centric, really was for there to be a userspace component talking to the drm driver for allocation, ie. xf86-video-foo and/or src/gallium/drivers/foo (for example) ;-)
Which means for x11 having a SoC vendor specific xf86-video-foo for x11.. or vendor specific gbm implementation for wayland. (Although at least in the latter case it is a pretty small piece of code.) But that is probably what you are trying to avoid.
I've been trying to get my head around how PRIME relates to DDX drivers. As I understand it (which is likely wrong), you have a laptop with both an Intel & an nVidia GPU. You have both the i915 & nouveau kernel drivers loaded. What I'm not sure about is which GPU's display controller is actually hooked up to the physical connector? Perhaps there is a MUX like there is on Versatile Express?
What I also don't understand is what DDX driver is loaded? Is it xf86-video-intel, xf86-video-nouveau or both? I get the impression that there's a "master" DDX which implements 2D operations but can import buffers using PRIME from the other driver and draw to them. Or is it more that it's able to export rendered buffers to the "slave" DRM for scanout? Either way, it's pretty similar to an ARM SoC setup which has the GPU and the display as two totally independent devices.
At any rate, for both xorg and wayland/gbm, you know when a buffer is going to be a scanout buffer. What I'd recommend is define a small userspace API that your customers (the SoC vendors) implement to allocate a scanout buffer and hand you back a dmabuf fd. That could be used both for x11 and for gbm. Inputs should be requested width/height and format. And outputs pitch plus dmabuf fd.
(Actually you might even just want to use gbm as your starting point. You could probably just use gbm from xf86-video-armsoc for allocation, to have one thing that works for both wayland and x11. Scanout and cursor buffers should go to vendor/SoC specific fxn, rest can be allocated from mali kernel driver.)
What does that buy us over just using drm_mode_create_dumb on the display's DRM driver?
wouldn't need a way to programmatically describe the constraints either: As you say, if userspace sets the "SCANOUT" flag, it would just "know" that on this SoC, that buffer needs to be physically contiguous for example.
not really.. it just knows it wants to scanout the buffer, and tells this as a hint to the kernel.
For example, on omapdrm, the SCANOUT flag does nothing on omap4+ (where phys contig is not required for scanout), but causes CMA (dma_alloc_*()) to be used on omap3. Userspace doesn't care. It just knows that it wants to be able to scanout that particular buffer.
I think that's the idea? The omap3's allocator driver would use contiguous memory when it detects the SCANOUT flag whereas the omap4 allocator driver wouldn't have to. No complex negotiation of constraints - it just "knows".
well, it is same allocating driver in both cases (although maybe that is unimportant). The "it" that just knows it wants to scanout is userspace. The "it" that just knows that scanout translates to contiguous (or not) is the kernel. Perhaps we are saying the same thing ;-)
Yeah - I think we are... so what's the issue with having a per-SoC allocation driver again?
Cheers,
Tom
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
-
Rob Clark -
Tom Cooksey