Am Freitag, den 01.11.2013, 09:22 -0400 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Lucas Stach l.stach@pengutronix.de wrote:
GStreamer needs _some_ way of accessing the buffer contents with the CPU, this doesn't necessarily have to be the dumb mmap we have right now. DMA-BUF support in GSt is not really finished (I know we have a lot of patches internally to make it actually work with anything, which are trickling upstream right now), so this might be a good time to hammer out how it should be done, so we can adapt GSt before people start to rely on the dma-buf fallback mmap.
I would think the bracketed mmap idea that was thrown around by Rob some time ago when the mmap topic first surfaced is simple enough that we don't need additional userspace helpers and should be enough to make the coherency issue disappear.
Yeah, if we add a BEGIN_MMAP/END_MMAP ioctl or so to the dma-buf mmap stuff and simply demand that userspace calls that we'd have something half-sane at least. Since we currently don't really have any real users we could still do this abi change I think.
One open issue is whether the BEGIN_MMAP ioctl should also synchronize with any outstanding gpu access. Imo it should, since that's pretty much how all the current drm drivers work, but maybe we should reserve space for a few flags so that this can be extended later on - Android seems to be pretty insistent on using explicit syncpoints everywhere instead of implicit synchronization. Or maybe we should have the flag already, but reject implicit syncing until Maarten's dma_fence stuff is in and enabled, dunno. Adding him to cc.
I don't think we need that right now. We may prepare for implicit sync by having the flag ready in the API, but don't force the exporters to implement it right now.
I suppose I wouldn't mind if we made BEGIN/END_MMAP as sort of clones of the CPU_PREP/FINI ioctls I have in msm.. where the CPU_PREP takes a flag/bitmask to indicate READ/WRITE/NOSYNC
That doesn't really help with partial buffer access, like you'd get if you were using the buffer for vertex upload. Although not really sure if we'd be seeing dmabuf's for that sort of use-case. We could make a more elaborate kernel interface that maps better to all the different cases in pipe_transfer. Or we could just say that that is overkill. I don't really have strong opinion about that (so someone who does, send an RFC). But I do agree with the "barriers only, not locks".
I just checked back with our GStreamer guy and he thinks that for the use-cases he sees today it would make a lot of sense to have some way to indicate that userspace is only going to access a partial range of the buffer. I think this may be a crucial optimization on all kinds of devices where you have to ensure coherency manually.
Personally I would like to have the same kind of partial access indicators in DRMs cpu_prep/fini to optimize all the userspace suballocations we have today.
I think we are all on the same page with the barriers only thing.
Regards, Lucas