Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>
> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>
> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>
> /*
> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
> - * it to be scheduled
> + * it to be scheduled.
> + *
> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay, as if
> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
> + * signaled their completion fences.
This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
So this function can't be called like this.
> */
> fence = dma_fence_get(&s_fence->scheduled);
> dma_fence_put(entity->dependency);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> index ef120475e7c6..06a0eebcca10 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static const char *drm_sched_fence_get_driver_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
> static const char *drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name(struct dma_fence *f)
> {
> struct drm_sched_fence *fence = to_drm_sched_fence(f);
> - return (const char *)fence->sched->name;
> + return (const char *)fence->sched_name;
> }
>
> static void drm_sched_fence_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ void drm_sched_fence_init(struct drm_sched_fence *fence,
> unsigned seq;
>
> fence->sched = entity->rq->sched;
> + strlcpy(fence->sched_name, entity->rq->sched->name,
> + sizeof(fence->sched_name));
> seq = atomic_inc_return(&entity->fence_seq);
> dma_fence_init(&fence->scheduled, &drm_sched_fence_ops_scheduled,
> &fence->lock, entity->fence_context, seq);
> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> index e95b4837e5a3..4fa9523bd47d 100644
> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> @@ -305,6 +305,11 @@ struct drm_sched_fence {
> * @lock: the lock used by the scheduled and the finished fences.
> */
> spinlock_t lock;
> + /**
> + * @sched_name: the name of the scheduler that owns this fence. We
> + * keep a copy here since fences can outlive their scheduler.
> + */
> + char sched_name[16];
This just mitigates the problem, but doesn't fix it.
The real issue is that the hw fence is kept around much longer than that.
Additional to that I'm not willing to increase the scheduler fence size
like that just to decouple them from the scheduler.
Regards,
Christian.
> /**
> * @owner: job owner for debugging
> */
>
On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>
>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>
>> /*
>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>> - * it to be scheduled
>> + * it to be scheduled.
>> + *
>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay, as if
>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>
> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>
> So this function can't be called like this.
As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
*dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even take
the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just going
to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support, and
reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
semantics and I'll do my own thing.
~~ Lina
On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>
>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>
>> /*
>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>> - * it to be scheduled
>> + * it to be scheduled.
>> + *
>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay, as if
>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>
> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>
> So this function can't be called like this.
>
>> */
>> fence = dma_fence_get(&s_fence->scheduled);
>> dma_fence_put(entity->dependency);
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>> index ef120475e7c6..06a0eebcca10 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static const char *drm_sched_fence_get_driver_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
>> static const char *drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name(struct dma_fence *f)
>> {
>> struct drm_sched_fence *fence = to_drm_sched_fence(f);
>> - return (const char *)fence->sched->name;
>> + return (const char *)fence->sched_name;
>> }
>>
>> static void drm_sched_fence_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>> @@ -216,6 +216,8 @@ void drm_sched_fence_init(struct drm_sched_fence *fence,
>> unsigned seq;
>>
>> fence->sched = entity->rq->sched;
>> + strlcpy(fence->sched_name, entity->rq->sched->name,
>> + sizeof(fence->sched_name));
>> seq = atomic_inc_return(&entity->fence_seq);
>> dma_fence_init(&fence->scheduled, &drm_sched_fence_ops_scheduled,
>> &fence->lock, entity->fence_context, seq);
>> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>> index e95b4837e5a3..4fa9523bd47d 100644
>> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>> @@ -305,6 +305,11 @@ struct drm_sched_fence {
>> * @lock: the lock used by the scheduled and the finished fences.
>> */
>> spinlock_t lock;
>> + /**
>> + * @sched_name: the name of the scheduler that owns this fence. We
>> + * keep a copy here since fences can outlive their scheduler.
>> + */
>> + char sched_name[16];
>
> This just mitigates the problem, but doesn't fix it.
Could you point out any remaining issues so we can fix them? Right now
this absolutely *is* broken and this fixes the breakage I observed. If
there are other bugs remaining, I'd like to know what they are so I can
fix them.
> The real issue is that the hw fence is kept around much longer than that.
As far as I know, the whole point of scheduler fences is to decouple the
hw fences from the consumers. I already talked with Daniel about this.
The current behavior is broken. These fences can live forever. It is
broken to require that they outlive the driver that produced them.
> Additional to that I'm not willing to increase the scheduler fence size
> like that just to decouple them from the scheduler.
Did you read my explanation on the cover letter as to how this is just
broken right now? We need to fix this. If you have a better suggestion
I'll take it. Doing nothing is not an option.
~~ Lina
Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>
>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>> /*
>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>> as if
>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>
>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>
>> So this function can't be called like this.
>
> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
for the entity.
>
> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
expectations.
I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
in the way it is intended to be used.
You can go ahead and try to re-implement the functionality in Rust, but
then I would reject that pointing out that this should probably be an
extension to the existing code.
Christian.
>
> ~~ Lina
>
On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>>> /*
>>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>>> as if
>>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>>
>>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>>
>>> So this function can't be called like this.
>>
>> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
>> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
>> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
>> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
>
> Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
> for the entity.
>
>>
>> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
>> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
>> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
>> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
>> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
>> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
>> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
>
> I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
> expectations.
>
> I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
> understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
>
> We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
> you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
> in the way it is intended to be used.
I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
(Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
--
Regards,
Luben
15 July 2023 at 00:03, "Luben Tuikov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
>
> >
> > Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> >
> > >
> > > On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> > A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
> > independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
> > scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
> >
> > Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
> > dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
> > include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
> > 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
> > drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > /*
> > * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
> > - * it to be scheduled
> > + * it to be scheduled.
> > + *
> > + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
> > + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
> > as if
> > + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
> > + * signaled their completion fences.
> >
> > This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
> > it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
> >
> > So this function can't be called like this.
> >
> > >
> > > As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
> > > means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
> > > *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
> > > already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
> > for the entity.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
> > > being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
> > > take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
> > > do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
> > > going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
> > > and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
> > > semantics and I'll do my own thing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
> > expectations.
> >
> > I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
> > understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
> >
> > We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
> > you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
> > in the way it is intended to be used.
> >
>
> I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
> may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
> (Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
>
> We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
Either drm/scheduler is common code that we should use for our driver, in which case we need to "adjust" it to fit the requirements of a safe Rust abstraction usable for AGX. Or, drm/scheduler is not common code intended for drivers with our requirements, and then we need to be able to write our own scheduler.
AMD has NAK'd both options, effectively NAK'ing the driver.
I will ask a simple yes/no question: Should we use drm/sched?
If yes, it will need patches like these, and AMD needs to be ok with that and stop NAK'ing them on sight becuase they don't match the existing requirements.
If no, we will write our own scheduler in Rust, and AMD needs to be ok with that and not NAK it on sight because it's not drm/sched.
Which is it?
Note if we write a Rust scheduler, drm/sched and amdgpu will be unaffected. If we do that and AMD comes back and NAKs it -- as said in this thread would "probably" happen -- then it is impossible for us to upstream a driver regardless of whether we use drm/sched.
Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
That's not ok.
Am 15.07.23 um 16:14 schrieb [email protected]:
> 15 July 2023 at 00:03, "Luben Tuikov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
>>
>>> Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>
>>>> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>
>>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>
>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>> /*
>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>> as if
>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>>
>>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>>
>>> So this function can't be called like this.
>>>
>>>> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
>>>> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
>>>> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
>>>> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
>>> for the entity.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
>>>> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
>>>> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
>>>> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
>>>> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
>>>> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
>>>> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
>>> expectations.
>>>
>>> I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
>>> understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
>>>
>>> We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
>>> you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
>>> in the way it is intended to be used.
>>>
>> I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
>> may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
>> (Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
>>
>> We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
> Either drm/scheduler is common code that we should use for our driver, in which case we need to "adjust" it to fit the requirements of a safe Rust abstraction usable for AGX.
Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. As far as I can see
you don't need to adjust anything in the common drm/scheduler code.
That code works with quite a bunch of different drivers, including the
Intel XE which has similar requirements to your work here.
We can talk about gradually improving the common code, but as Luben
already wrote as well this needs to be done very carefully.
> Or, drm/scheduler is not common code intended for drivers with our requirements, and then we need to be able to write our own scheduler.
>
> AMD has NAK'd both options, effectively NAK'ing the driver.
>
> I will ask a simple yes/no question: Should we use drm/sched?
Well, yes.
>
> If yes, it will need patches like these,
No, you don't.
First of all you need to try to adjust your driver to match the
requirements of drm/scheduler and *not* the other way around.
> and AMD needs to be ok with that and stop NAK'ing them on sight becuase they don't match the existing requirements.
>
> If no, we will write our own scheduler in Rust, and AMD needs to be ok with that and not NAK it on sight because it's not drm/sched.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Note if we write a Rust scheduler, drm/sched and amdgpu will be unaffected. If we do that and AMD comes back and NAKs it -- as said in this thread would "probably" happen -- then it is impossible for us to upstream a driver regardless of whether we use drm/sched.
>
> Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
Well as far as I can see I'm totally polite as well.
Pointing out that approaches doesn't seem to make sense and NAKing
patches is a perfectly normal part of the review process.
What you need to to is to take a step back and ask yourself why this
here is facing so much rejection from our side. I have to admit that I
don't seem to be good at explaining that, cause we are obviously talking
past each other, but you don't seem to try hard to understand what I'm
pointing out either.
> That's not ok.
As far as I can see it is.
As maintainer of a commonly used component my first duty is to preserve
the status quo and prevent modifications which are not well thought
through. And to be honest those changes here strongly looks like Lina is
just adjusting the code to match her requirements without looking left
and right first.
Regards,
Christian.
On 18/07/2023 00.55, Christian König wrote:
> Am 15.07.23 um 16:14 schrieb [email protected]:
>> 15 July 2023 at 00:03, "Luben Tuikov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>>> /*
>>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>>> as if
>>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>>>
>>>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>>>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> So this function can't be called like this.
>>>>
>>>>> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
>>>>> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
>>>>> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
>>>>> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
>>>> for the entity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
>>>>> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
>>>>> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
>>>>> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
>>>>> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
>>>>> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
>>>>> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
>>>> expectations.
>>>>
>>>> I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
>>>> understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
>>>>
>>>> We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
>>>> you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
>>>> in the way it is intended to be used.
>>>>
>>> I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
>>> may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
>>> (Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
>>>
>>> We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
>> Either drm/scheduler is common code that we should use for our driver, in which case we need to "adjust" it to fit the requirements of a safe Rust abstraction usable for AGX.
>
> Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. As far as I can see
> you don't need to adjust anything in the common drm/scheduler code.
>
> That code works with quite a bunch of different drivers, including the
> Intel XE which has similar requirements to your work here.
>
> We can talk about gradually improving the common code, but as Luben
> already wrote as well this needs to be done very carefully.
>
>> Or, drm/scheduler is not common code intended for drivers with our requirements, and then we need to be able to write our own scheduler.
>>
>> AMD has NAK'd both options, effectively NAK'ing the driver.
>>
>> I will ask a simple yes/no question: Should we use drm/sched?
>
> Well, yes.
>
>>
>> If yes, it will need patches like these,
>
> No, you don't.
>
> First of all you need to try to adjust your driver to match the
> requirements of drm/scheduler and *not* the other way around.
>
>> and AMD needs to be ok with that and stop NAK'ing them on sight becuase they don't match the existing requirements.
>>
>> If no, we will write our own scheduler in Rust, and AMD needs to be ok with that and not NAK it on sight because it's not drm/sched.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>> Note if we write a Rust scheduler, drm/sched and amdgpu will be unaffected. If we do that and AMD comes back and NAKs it -- as said in this thread would "probably" happen -- then it is impossible for us to upstream a driver regardless of whether we use drm/sched.
>>
>> Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
>
> Well as far as I can see I'm totally polite as well.
>
> Pointing out that approaches doesn't seem to make sense and NAKing
> patches is a perfectly normal part of the review process.
>
> What you need to to is to take a step back and ask yourself why this
> here is facing so much rejection from our side. I have to admit that I
> don't seem to be good at explaining that, cause we are obviously talking
> past each other, but you don't seem to try hard to understand what I'm
> pointing out either.
>
>> That's not ok.
>
> As far as I can see it is.
>
> As maintainer of a commonly used component my first duty is to preserve
> the status quo and prevent modifications which are not well thought
> through. And to be honest those changes here strongly looks like Lina is
> just adjusting the code to match her requirements without looking left
> and right first.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>
I give up. You are ignoring everything we say, and rejecting everything
we suggest. We've already explained why drm_sched doesn't work for us.
I'm tired of repeating the same explanation over and over again only to
be ignored and told I'm wrong.
I'll start working on a new, much simpler Rust-native scheduler based on
the workqueue Rust abstractions which are in review.
~~ Lina
On 2023-07-17 22:35, Asahi Lina wrote:
> On 18/07/2023 00.55, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 15.07.23 um 16:14 schrieb [email protected]:
>>> 15 July 2023 at 00:03, "Luben Tuikov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>>>> as if
>>>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>>>>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this function can't be called like this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
>>>>>> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
>>>>>> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
>>>>>> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
>>>>> for the entity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
>>>>>> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
>>>>>> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
>>>>>> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
>>>>>> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
>>>>>> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
>>>>>> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
>>>>> expectations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
>>>>> understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
>>>>> you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
>>>>> in the way it is intended to be used.
>>>>>
>>>> I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
>>>> may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
>>>> (Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
>>>>
>>>> We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
>>> Either drm/scheduler is common code that we should use for our driver, in which case we need to "adjust" it to fit the requirements of a safe Rust abstraction usable for AGX.
>>
>> Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. As far as I can see
>> you don't need to adjust anything in the common drm/scheduler code.
>>
>> That code works with quite a bunch of different drivers, including the
>> Intel XE which has similar requirements to your work here.
>>
>> We can talk about gradually improving the common code, but as Luben
>> already wrote as well this needs to be done very carefully.
>>
>>> Or, drm/scheduler is not common code intended for drivers with our requirements, and then we need to be able to write our own scheduler.
>>>
>>> AMD has NAK'd both options, effectively NAK'ing the driver.
>>>
>>> I will ask a simple yes/no question: Should we use drm/sched?
>>
>> Well, yes.
>>
>>>
>>> If yes, it will need patches like these,
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>> First of all you need to try to adjust your driver to match the
>> requirements of drm/scheduler and *not* the other way around.
>>
>>> and AMD needs to be ok with that and stop NAK'ing them on sight becuase they don't match the existing requirements.
>>>
>>> If no, we will write our own scheduler in Rust, and AMD needs to be ok with that and not NAK it on sight because it's not drm/sched.
>>>
>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>> Note if we write a Rust scheduler, drm/sched and amdgpu will be unaffected. If we do that and AMD comes back and NAKs it -- as said in this thread would "probably" happen -- then it is impossible for us to upstream a driver regardless of whether we use drm/sched.
>>>
>>> Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
>>
>> Well as far as I can see I'm totally polite as well.
>>
>> Pointing out that approaches doesn't seem to make sense and NAKing
>> patches is a perfectly normal part of the review process.
>>
>> What you need to to is to take a step back and ask yourself why this
>> here is facing so much rejection from our side. I have to admit that I
>> don't seem to be good at explaining that, cause we are obviously talking
>> past each other, but you don't seem to try hard to understand what I'm
>> pointing out either.
>>
>>> That's not ok.
>>
>> As far as I can see it is.
>>
>> As maintainer of a commonly used component my first duty is to preserve
>> the status quo and prevent modifications which are not well thought
>> through. And to be honest those changes here strongly looks like Lina is
>> just adjusting the code to match her requirements without looking left
>> and right first.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>
>
> I give up. You are ignoring everything we say, and rejecting everything
> we suggest. We've already explained why drm_sched doesn't work for us.
> I'm tired of repeating the same explanation over and over again only to
> be ignored and told I'm wrong.
>
> I'll start working on a new, much simpler Rust-native scheduler based on
> the workqueue Rust abstractions which are in review.
>
> ~~ Lina
>
Perhaps it is worth having a reset and just trying to clarify requirements
one at a time, even if that involves describing a change on a single line
in a single file.
The maintainer discourse is quite common. Its ultimate goal is to keep
things working. If we let some dependencies loose, or change some requirements,
it's conceivable that this may lead to further problems with new development
of current drivers, as well as new drivers. This will lead to more one-off fixes,
and more "adjustments" to the point where the core requirement is lost,
and the code has lost its purpose and meaning.
Maintainers usually see 10 moves ahead, while driver developers as such in their
role, are expressly concerned with their immediate need to get this and that
driver and its feature working.
We should perhaps concentrate on the core of the requirements--the very
root of what is deemed to need to be changed, to understand why, and
if there's a better way to achieve this, and in general a good reason
for the way to proceed forward, whichever way is taken.
Let's take it one thing at a time, slow and perhaps in a ELI5 manner to make
sure no one misses the other person's point.
Perhaps short and lucid, but complete emails would be best, with code quoted,
and scenarios explained. I know this takes a long time--it's not unusual for me
to take hours to write a single email and I'm exhausted after that.
We all mean well here. Hope we can make something good.
--
Regards,
Luben
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 17:55:04 +0200
Christian König <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 15.07.23 um 16:14 schrieb [email protected]:
...
> > Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code
> > "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an
> > impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
>
> Well as far as I can see I'm totally polite as well.
Christian,
politeness is in the eye of the beholder. You do not get to decide how
other people feel.
I consider myself a very blunt and difficult reviewer on my own area
(which I consider mostly as a negative trait), and while I have
alienated some people over the years, I try hard to not intentionally
hurt anyone. Sometimes it means that writing one email takes an hour or
two. It can take a tremendous amount of energy. Like this email here.
If people have the courage to repeatedly tell someone that the someone
comes out as off-putting, it cannot be dismissed. It really means
coming out as off-putting. There does not need to be anything malicious
related to it from either side, it could as well be a cultural
difference that one cannot know in advance, or it could be a personal
hurt inside the offending person lashing out.
When told, it is time to reflect.
> Pointing out that approaches doesn't seem to make sense and NAKing
> patches is a perfectly normal part of the review process.
Yes. You don't have to change your message.
One only needs to make an effort to try to change their tone. Otherwise
they lose and alienate developers by choosing to hurt them. It was an
accident before one knew about it, but now it is known, so how one
communicates is a decision. It's no longer an accident.
> What you need to to is to take a step back and ask yourself why this
> here is facing so much rejection from our side. I have to admit that I
> don't seem to be good at explaining that, cause we are obviously talking
> past each other, but you don't seem to try hard to understand what I'm
> pointing out either.
Maybe try using a softer tone for a start? Lina has reiterated the
restrictions imposed by the hardware, the firmware they cannot change,
and Rust design principles. How do *you* fit those with unchanged
drm/sched?
> > That's not ok.
>
> As far as I can see it is.
Hurting people is not ok.
Not even if the kernel community culture traditionally does so.
> As maintainer of a commonly used component my first duty is to preserve
> the status quo and prevent modifications which are not well thought
> through.
Of course.
Accidentally hurting someone is eventually unavoidable. Defending the
communication style that hurt someone in order to keep on doing that
just makes one look like a d...
Thanks,
pq
On 18/07/2023 14.45, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> On 2023-07-17 22:35, Asahi Lina wrote:
>> On 18/07/2023 00.55, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 15.07.23 um 16:14 schrieb [email protected]:
>>>> 15 July 2023 at 00:03, "Luben Tuikov" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-07-14 05:57, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 11:49 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/07/2023 17.43, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 14.07.23 um 10:21 schrieb Asahi Lina:
>>>>>> A signaled scheduler fence can outlive its scheduler, since fences are
>>>>>> independencly reference counted. Therefore, we can't reference the
>>>>>> scheduler in the get_timeline_name() implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes oopses on `cat /sys/kernel/debug/dma_buf/bufinfo` when shared
>>>>>> dma-bufs reference fences from GPU schedulers that no longer exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Asahi Lina <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 5 +++++
>>>>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>>> index b2bbc8a68b30..17f35b0b005a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>>>>>> @@ -389,7 +389,12 @@ static bool
>>>>>> drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * Fence is from the same scheduler, only need to wait for
>>>>>> - * it to be scheduled
>>>>>> + * it to be scheduled.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Note: s_fence->sched could have been freed and reallocated
>>>>>> + * as another scheduler. This false positive case is okay,
>>>>>> as if
>>>>>> + * the old scheduler was freed all of its jobs must have
>>>>>> + * signaled their completion fences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is outright nonsense. As long as an entity for a scheduler exists
>>>>>> it is not allowed to free up this scheduler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this function can't be called like this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I already explained, the fences can outlive their scheduler. That
>>>>>>> means *this* entity certainly exists for *this* scheduler, but the
>>>>>>> *dependency* fence might have come from a past scheduler that was
>>>>>>> already destroyed along with all of its entities, and its address reused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well this is function is not about fences, this function is a callback
>>>>>> for the entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christian, I'm really getting tired of your tone. I don't appreciate
>>>>>>> being told my comments are "outright nonsense" when you don't even
>>>>>>> take the time to understand what the issue is and what I'm trying to
>>>>>>> do/document. If you aren't interested in working with me, I'm just
>>>>>>> going to give up on drm_sched, wait until Rust gets workqueue support,
>>>>>>> and reimplement it in Rust. You can keep your broken fence lifetime
>>>>>>> semantics and I'll do my own thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm certainly trying to help here, but you seem to have unrealistic
>>>>>> expectations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I perfectly understand what you are trying to do, but you don't seem to
>>>>>> understand that this functionality here isn't made for your use case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can adjust the functionality to better match your requirements, but
>>>>>> you can't say it is broken because it doesn't work when you use it not
>>>>>> in the way it is intended to be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I believe "adjusting" functionality to fit some external requirements,
>>>>> may have unintended consequences, requiring yet more and more "adjustments".
>>>>> (Or may allow (new) drivers to do wild things which may lead to wild results. :-) )
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to be extra careful and wary of this.
>>>> Either drm/scheduler is common code that we should use for our driver, in which case we need to "adjust" it to fit the requirements of a safe Rust abstraction usable for AGX.
>>>
>>> Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. As far as I can see
>>> you don't need to adjust anything in the common drm/scheduler code.
>>>
>>> That code works with quite a bunch of different drivers, including the
>>> Intel XE which has similar requirements to your work here.
>>>
>>> We can talk about gradually improving the common code, but as Luben
>>> already wrote as well this needs to be done very carefully.
>>>
>>>> Or, drm/scheduler is not common code intended for drivers with our requirements, and then we need to be able to write our own scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> AMD has NAK'd both options, effectively NAK'ing the driver.
>>>>
>>>> I will ask a simple yes/no question: Should we use drm/sched?
>>>
>>> Well, yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If yes, it will need patches like these,
>>>
>>> No, you don't.
>>>
>>> First of all you need to try to adjust your driver to match the
>>> requirements of drm/scheduler and *not* the other way around.
>>>
>>>> and AMD needs to be ok with that and stop NAK'ing them on sight becuase they don't match the existing requirements.
>>>>
>>>> If no, we will write our own scheduler in Rust, and AMD needs to be ok with that and not NAK it on sight because it's not drm/sched.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> Note if we write a Rust scheduler, drm/sched and amdgpu will be unaffected. If we do that and AMD comes back and NAKs it -- as said in this thread would "probably" happen -- then it is impossible for us to upstream a driver regardless of whether we use drm/sched.
>>>>
>>>> Lina has been polite and accommodating while AMD calls her code "outright nonsense" and gets "outright NAK"s, and puts her into an impossible catch-22 where no matter what she does it's NAK'd.
>>>
>>> Well as far as I can see I'm totally polite as well.
>>>
>>> Pointing out that approaches doesn't seem to make sense and NAKing
>>> patches is a perfectly normal part of the review process.
>>>
>>> What you need to to is to take a step back and ask yourself why this
>>> here is facing so much rejection from our side. I have to admit that I
>>> don't seem to be good at explaining that, cause we are obviously talking
>>> past each other, but you don't seem to try hard to understand what I'm
>>> pointing out either.
>>>
>>>> That's not ok.
>>>
>>> As far as I can see it is.
>>>
>>> As maintainer of a commonly used component my first duty is to preserve
>>> the status quo and prevent modifications which are not well thought
>>> through. And to be honest those changes here strongly looks like Lina is
>>> just adjusting the code to match her requirements without looking left
>>> and right first.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I give up. You are ignoring everything we say, and rejecting everything
>> we suggest. We've already explained why drm_sched doesn't work for us.
>> I'm tired of repeating the same explanation over and over again only to
>> be ignored and told I'm wrong.
>>
>> I'll start working on a new, much simpler Rust-native scheduler based on
>> the workqueue Rust abstractions which are in review.
>>
>> ~~ Lina
>>
>
> Perhaps it is worth having a reset and just trying to clarify requirements
> one at a time, even if that involves describing a change on a single line
> in a single file.
I've already tried to explain the issue. The DRM scheduler design, as it
stands today, makes it impractical to write a safe Rust abstraction for
it. This is a fact. Christian has repeatedly NAKed my attempts at
changing it to make such a safe abstraction possible, and is clearly
opposed to the fundamental lifetime requirements change I am trying to
make here. Therefore, we are at an impasse.
It's unfortunate, but given this situation, the DRM scheduler will not
be available to Rust DRM drivers. I thought the goal of the DRM
subsystem common code was to cater to multiple drivers and usage
approaches, with an emphasis on doing things "right" and avoiding design
issues that are common mistakes in driver design. Clearly, this is not
the case for all of DRM, at least not the DRM scheduler.
In software engineering, complex lifetime requirements are an
anti-pattern, which is one reason why Rust draws a line between safe and
unsafe APIs. For a safe API, it is up to the API developer to design it
such that it cannot be misused in a way that causes memory safety
issues, and the only lifetime requirements it can impose are those that
can be expressed in the Rust type system and statically checked at
compile time. The DRM scheduler's complex chain of lifetime requirements
cannot, and wrapping it in enough glue to remove those lifetime
requirements would require about as much code as just rewriting it, as
well as add unacceptable duplication and overhead.
In kernel Rust, we strive to only have safe APIs for components which
have no fundamental reason for being unsafe (things like direct memory
mapping and raw hardware access). The DRM scheduler does not fall into
one of those "inherently unsafe" categories, so it doesn't make sense to
provide a raw unsafe API for it. Doing so would just expose Rust code to
the kind of subtle safety implications that cause memory problems every
day in C. If I were to use drm_sched's unsafe API "as is" in my driver,
it would *by far* be the least auditable, most complex usage of unsafe
code in the entire driver, and I have no confidence that I would be able
to get it right and keep it right as the driver changes.
I don't see a reason why this cannot be simply fixed in drm_sched, but
Christian disagrees, and has repeatedly (and strongly) NAKed my attempts
at doing so, and indeed NAKed the entire premise of the change in
lifetime requirements itself. So here we are. There is no solution that
will work for everyone that involves drm_sched.
So I don't have a choice other than to just not use drm_sched and roll
my own. I will happily move that Rust implementation to common code if
another Rust driver comes along and wants to use it. I'm not sure if
that kind of thing can be easily made available to C drivers in reverse,
but I guess we'll cross that bridge when a C driver expresses interest
in using it.
So far it seems existing C drivers are happy with drm_sched's design and
complex lifetime requirements, even though they aren't even documented.
Perhaps they managed to reverse engineer them from the source, or
someone told the authors about it (certainly nobody told me when I
started using drm_sched). Or maybe a bunch of the drm_scheduler users
are actually broken and have memory safety issues in corner cases. I
don't know, though if I had to bet, I'd bet on the second option.
Actually, let's do a quick search and find out!
panfrost_remove() -> panfrost_device_fini() -> panfrost_job_fini() ->
drm_sched_fini()
There is a direct, synchronous path between device removal and
destroying the DRM scheduler. At no point does it wait for any jobs to
complete. That's what patch #3 in this series tries to fix.
In fact, it doesn't even keep the entities alive! It calls
drm_dev_unregister() before everything else, but as the docs for the DRM
driver lifetimes clearly say (see, docs!), objects visible to userspace
must survive that and only be released from the release callback.
drm_sched entities are created/destroyed from
panfrost_job_open()/panfrost_job_close(), which are called from
panfrost_open() and panfrost_postclose(), which are the userspace file
open/close functions.
That one I fix in the Rust abstraction already (that one's relatively
easy to fix), so it doesn't need a drm_sched patch from my point of
view, but it is yet another subtle, undocumented lifetime requirement
that is, evidently, impossible to know about and get right without
documentation.
Meanwhile, panfrost_fence_ops has no remove() callback, which means
there is no reference path stopping device removal (and therefore
scheduler teardown) or even module unload while driver fences are still
alive. That leads to the UAF patch #2 in this series tries to fix.
In other words, as far as I can tell, the panfrost driver gets
*everything* wrong when it comes to the DRM scheduler lifetime
requirements, and will crash and burn if the driver is unbound while
jobs are in flight, anyone has a file descriptor open at all, or even if
any shared buffer holding a DRM scheduler fence from it is bound to the
display controller at that time.
This is why this kind of design is not allowed in Rust. Because nobody
gets it right. *Especially* not without docs. I assumed, like the
authors of the Panfrost driver clearly assumed, that the DRM scheduler
API would not have these crazy undocumented hidden requirements. The
only reason I found out the hard way is I happen to create and destroy
schedulers all the time, not just once globally, so I would hit the bugs
and dangling pointers much more often than Panfrost users who, most
likely, never unbind their devices. But we both have the same problem.
I think I've done all I can to explain the issues and try to fix them,
so the ball is in your court now. If you want to keep the current
design, that's fine, but Rust code will not be a drm_sched user in that
case. And the rest of the DRM folks in the C world will have to contend
with these issues and fix all the problems in the C drivers (I'm sure
panfrost isn't the only one, it's just literally the first one I looked at).
As for me, I'm happy to write a simple workqueue-based Rust scheduler
suitable for firmware-managed scheduler devices. Honestly, at this
point, I have very little faith left in my ability to fix all these
issues in drm_sched (I know there's at least one more lurking, I saw a
NULL deref but I wasn't able to reproduce it nor divine how it possibly
happened). That, combined with the hostility from the AMD folks about my
attempts to improve drm_sched even just a little bit, makes that
decision very easy.
Farewell, DRM scheduler. It was nice trying to work with you, but things
just didn't work out. I won't be submitting a v2 to this series myself.
Please ping me if you fix all these fundamental design issues with
drm_sched and think I might actually be able to use it safely in Rust
one day. If the API design is solid and safe and the implementation done
in a way that inspires confidence at that time maybe we can yank out my
Rust solution when the time comes and switch back to drm_sched.
Just please don't expect me to do the work any more, I've done
everything I can and this now has to come from you, not me. I've spent
way more time understanding drm_sched, auditing its code, understanding
its design intent, trying to fix it, and getting yelled at for it than
it would take to write a new, clean, safe Rust scheduler. I don't regret
some of the time spent (some of the implementation details of drm_sched
have taught me useful things), but I'm not prepared to spend any more,
sorry.
~~ Lina
Am 18.07.23 um 04:35 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> On 18/07/2023 00.55, Christian König wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>
> I give up. You are ignoring everything we say, and rejecting
> everything we suggest. We've already explained why drm_sched doesn't
> work for us. I'm tired of repeating the same explanation over and over
> again only to be ignored and told I'm wrong.
I'm not telling you that you are wrong in any way. What I'm pointing out
is that your solution won't work upstream and you need to take a step
back and think about why this won't work.
>
> I'll start working on a new, much simpler Rust-native scheduler based
> on the workqueue Rust abstractions which are in review.
Please note that when you are implementing a dma_fence interface you
also need my acknowledgement to get this upstream.
Additional to that Dave and Daniel might have objections to this as well.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> ~~ Lina
>
Am 21.07.23 um 12:33 schrieb Asahi Lina:
> [SNIP]
> I've already tried to explain the issue. The DRM scheduler design, as
> it stands today, makes it impractical to write a safe Rust abstraction
> for it. This is a fact. Christian has repeatedly NAKed my attempts at
> changing it to make such a safe abstraction possible, and is clearly
> opposed to the fundamental lifetime requirements change I am trying to
> make here. Therefore, we are at an impasse.
>
> It's unfortunate, but given this situation, the DRM scheduler will not
> be available to Rust DRM drivers. I thought the goal of the DRM
> subsystem common code was to cater to multiple drivers and usage
> approaches, with an emphasis on doing things "right" and avoiding
> design issues that are common mistakes in driver design. Clearly, this
> is not the case for all of DRM, at least not the DRM scheduler.
>
> In software engineering, complex lifetime requirements are an
> anti-pattern, which is one reason why Rust draws a line between safe
> and unsafe APIs. For a safe API, it is up to the API developer to
> design it such that it cannot be misused in a way that causes memory
> safety issues, and the only lifetime requirements it can impose are
> those that can be expressed in the Rust type system and statically
> checked at compile time. The DRM scheduler's complex chain of lifetime
> requirements cannot, and wrapping it in enough glue to remove those
> lifetime requirements would require about as much code as just
> rewriting it, as well as add unacceptable duplication and overhead.
>
> In kernel Rust, we strive to only have safe APIs for components which
> have no fundamental reason for being unsafe (things like direct memory
> mapping and raw hardware access). The DRM scheduler does not fall into
> one of those "inherently unsafe" categories, so it doesn't make sense
> to provide a raw unsafe API for it.
This is not completely correct. The DRM scheduler provides a dma_fence
interface as wrapper around hardware dma_fence interfaces.
This interface is made to allow core Linux memory management to query
the progress of hardware operations.
So you are working with something very low level here and have to follow
restrictions which Rust can't enforce from the language because it
simply can't know about that at compile time.
> Doing so would just expose Rust code to the kind of subtle safety
> implications that cause memory problems every day in C. If I were to
> use drm_sched's unsafe API "as is" in my driver, it would *by far* be
> the least auditable, most complex usage of unsafe code in the entire
> driver, and I have no confidence that I would be able to get it right
> and keep it right as the driver changes.
>
> I don't see a reason why this cannot be simply fixed in drm_sched, but
> Christian disagrees, and has repeatedly (and strongly) NAKed my
> attempts at doing so, and indeed NAKed the entire premise of the
> change in lifetime requirements itself. So here we are. There is no
> solution that will work for everyone that involves drm_sched.
>
> So I don't have a choice other than to just not use drm_sched and roll
> my own. I will happily move that Rust implementation to common code if
> another Rust driver comes along and wants to use it. I'm not sure if
> that kind of thing can be easily made available to C drivers in
> reverse, but I guess we'll cross that bridge when a C driver expresses
> interest in using it.
Well, to make it clear once more: Signaling a dma_fence from the
destructor of a reference counted object is very problematic! This will
be rejected no matter if you do that in C or in Rust.
What we can do is to make it safe in the sense that you don't access
freed up memory by using the scheduler fences even more as wrapper
around the hardware fence as we do now. But this quite a change and
requires a bit more than just hacking around
drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name().
>
> So far it seems existing C drivers are happy with drm_sched's design
> and complex lifetime requirements, even though they aren't even
> documented. Perhaps they managed to reverse engineer them from the
> source, or someone told the authors about it (certainly nobody told me
> when I started using drm_sched). Or maybe a bunch of the drm_scheduler
> users are actually broken and have memory safety issues in corner
> cases. I don't know, though if I had to bet, I'd bet on the second
> option.
>
> Actually, let's do a quick search and find out!
>
> panfrost_remove() -> panfrost_device_fini() -> panfrost_job_fini() ->
> drm_sched_fini()
>
> There is a direct, synchronous path between device removal and
> destroying the DRM scheduler. At no point does it wait for any jobs to
> complete. That's what patch #3 in this series tries to fix.
>
> In fact, it doesn't even keep the entities alive! It calls
> drm_dev_unregister() before everything else, but as the docs for the
> DRM driver lifetimes clearly say (see, docs!), objects visible to
> userspace must survive that and only be released from the release
> callback. drm_sched entities are created/destroyed from
> panfrost_job_open()/panfrost_job_close(), which are called from
> panfrost_open() and panfrost_postclose(), which are the userspace file
> open/close functions.
>
> That one I fix in the Rust abstraction already (that one's relatively
> easy to fix), so it doesn't need a drm_sched patch from my point of
> view, but it is yet another subtle, undocumented lifetime requirement
> that is, evidently, impossible to know about and get right without
> documentation.
>
> Meanwhile, panfrost_fence_ops has no remove() callback, which means
> there is no reference path stopping device removal (and therefore
> scheduler teardown) or even module unload while driver fences are
> still alive. That leads to the UAF patch #2 in this series tries to fix.
>
> In other words, as far as I can tell, the panfrost driver gets
> *everything* wrong when it comes to the DRM scheduler lifetime
> requirements, and will crash and burn if the driver is unbound while
> jobs are in flight, anyone has a file descriptor open at all, or even
> if any shared buffer holding a DRM scheduler fence from it is bound to
> the display controller at that time.
Yeah, that is perfectly correct what you wrote.
Daniel and I have gone back and forth multiple times how we should
design this and we opted to not use direct pointers for the contexts
because that allows for simpler driver implementations.
The DRM scheduler doesn't document the lifetime requirements because it
doesn't define the lifetime requirements. From the design the DRM
scheduler is supposed to be an component wrapping around DMA fences. And
those DMA fences have the necessary lifetime definition.
Now DMA fences have their live cycles explained in the structure
documentation, but it doesn't really talk much about the requirements
for dma_fence_ops implementations. We should probably improve that.
So yes, drivers need to keep the structures which might be accessed by
userspace alive even after the underlying device is removed. But
signaling dma_fences is completely independent from that.
>
> This is why this kind of design is not allowed in Rust.
Well it is allowed, it's just not safe.
Regards,
Christian.
> Because nobody gets it right. *Especially* not without docs. I
> assumed, like the authors of the Panfrost driver clearly assumed, that
> the DRM scheduler API would not have these crazy undocumented hidden
> requirements. The only reason I found out the hard way is I happen to
> create and destroy schedulers all the time, not just once globally, so
> I would hit the bugs and dangling pointers much more often than
> Panfrost users who, most likely, never unbind their devices. But we
> both have the same problem.
>
> I think I've done all I can to explain the issues and try to fix them,
> so the ball is in your court now. If you want to keep the current
> design, that's fine, but Rust code will not be a drm_sched user in
> that case. And the rest of the DRM folks in the C world will have to
> contend with these issues and fix all the problems in the C drivers
> (I'm sure panfrost isn't the only one, it's just literally the first
> one I looked at).
>
> As for me, I'm happy to write a simple workqueue-based Rust scheduler
> suitable for firmware-managed scheduler devices. Honestly, at this
> point, I have very little faith left in my ability to fix all these
> issues in drm_sched (I know there's at least one more lurking, I saw a
> NULL deref but I wasn't able to reproduce it nor divine how it
> possibly happened). That, combined with the hostility from the AMD
> folks about my attempts to improve drm_sched even just a little bit,
> makes that decision very easy.
>
> Farewell, DRM scheduler. It was nice trying to work with you, but
> things just didn't work out. I won't be submitting a v2 to this series
> myself. Please ping me if you fix all these fundamental design issues
> with drm_sched and think I might actually be able to use it safely in
> Rust one day. If the API design is solid and safe and the
> implementation done in a way that inspires confidence at that time
> maybe we can yank out my Rust solution when the time comes and switch
> back to drm_sched.
>
> Just please don't expect me to do the work any more, I've done
> everything I can and this now has to come from you, not me. I've spent
> way more time understanding drm_sched, auditing its code,
> understanding its design intent, trying to fix it, and getting yelled
> at for it than it would take to write a new, clean, safe Rust
> scheduler. I don't regret some of the time spent (some of the
> implementation details of drm_sched have taught me useful things), but
> I'm not prepared to spend any more, sorry.
>
> ~~ Lina
>
>
> Well, to make it clear once more: Signaling a dma_fence from the
> destructor of a reference counted object is very problematic! This will
> be rejected no matter if you do that in C or in Rust.
>
> What we can do is to make it safe in the sense that you don't access
> freed up memory by using the scheduler fences even more as wrapper
> around the hardware fence as we do now. But this quite a change and
> requires a bit more than just hacking around
> drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name().
I really think this needs to be documented if nothing else out of this thread.
Clearly nobody is going to get it right and hidden here in this
thread, this info isn't useful.
Can we have some sort of design document for the dma-fence/scheduler
interactions written and we can try and refine it with solutions on
the list, because I'm tired of people proposing things and NAK's
getting thrown around without anything to point people at.
The next NAK I see on the list will mean I block all patches from the
sender until they write a documentation patch, because seriously this
stuff is too hard for someone to just keep it in their head and expect
everyone else to understand from reading the code.
Dave.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 07:59, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, to make it clear once more: Signaling a dma_fence from the
> > destructor of a reference counted object is very problematic! This will
> > be rejected no matter if you do that in C or in Rust.
> >
> > What we can do is to make it safe in the sense that you don't access
> > freed up memory by using the scheduler fences even more as wrapper
> > around the hardware fence as we do now. But this quite a change and
> > requires a bit more than just hacking around
> > drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name().
>
> I really think this needs to be documented if nothing else out of this thread.
>
> Clearly nobody is going to get it right and hidden here in this
> thread, this info isn't useful.
>
> Can we have some sort of design document for the dma-fence/scheduler
> interactions written and we can try and refine it with solutions on
> the list, because I'm tired of people proposing things and NAK's
> getting thrown around without anything to point people at.
>
> The next NAK I see on the list will mean I block all patches from the
> sender until they write a documentation patch, because seriously this
> stuff is too hard for someone to just keep it in their head and expect
> everyone else to understand from reading the code.
I very much like the idea that NAK replies are counted as "you've just
volunteered yourself for some documentation patches so that next time
around you can reply with a link to the docs instead of just a NAK".
I don't think we'll get out of these discussions otherwise, since
currently we have undocumented, but very tricky semantics of the
drm/sched codebase for ringbuffer scheduling which is extended to fw
scheduling in also very tricky ways, with not entirely clear impacts
on semantics of all the drm/sched things. And as a result we just pile
up enormous amounts of threads where I think the only thing assured is
that people talk past each another.
Converting NAKs into doc patches should at least eventually get rid of
the worst confusions we're dealing with here.
Cheers, Sima
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
Am 01.11.23 um 09:13 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 07:59, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Well, to make it clear once more: Signaling a dma_fence from the
>>> destructor of a reference counted object is very problematic! This will
>>> be rejected no matter if you do that in C or in Rust.
>>>
>>> What we can do is to make it safe in the sense that you don't access
>>> freed up memory by using the scheduler fences even more as wrapper
>>> around the hardware fence as we do now. But this quite a change and
>>> requires a bit more than just hacking around
>>> drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name().
>> I really think this needs to be documented if nothing else out of this thread.
>>
>> Clearly nobody is going to get it right and hidden here in this
>> thread, this info isn't useful.
>>
>> Can we have some sort of design document for the dma-fence/scheduler
>> interactions written and we can try and refine it with solutions on
>> the list, because I'm tired of people proposing things and NAK's
>> getting thrown around without anything to point people at.
>>
>> The next NAK I see on the list will mean I block all patches from the
>> sender until they write a documentation patch, because seriously this
>> stuff is too hard for someone to just keep it in their head and expect
>> everyone else to understand from reading the code.
> I very much like the idea that NAK replies are counted as "you've just
> volunteered yourself for some documentation patches so that next time
> around you can reply with a link to the docs instead of just a NAK".
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea to me as well :)
Especially when I can use it to convince managers that we need to have
more work force on writing documentation.
> I don't think we'll get out of these discussions otherwise, since
> currently we have undocumented, but very tricky semantics of the
> drm/sched codebase for ringbuffer scheduling which is extended to fw
> scheduling in also very tricky ways, with not entirely clear impacts
> on semantics of all the drm/sched things. And as a result we just pile
> up enormous amounts of threads where I think the only thing assured is
> that people talk past each another.
The scheduler is certainly the ugliest part, but it's unfortunately
still only the tip of the iceberg.
I have seen at least halve a dozen approach in the last two years where
people tried to signal a dma_fence from userspace or similar.
Fortunately it was mostly prototyping and I could jump in early enough
to stop that, but basically this is a fight against windmills.
I was considering to change the dma_fence semantics so that
dma_fence_signal() could only be called from the interrupt contexts of
devices and then put a big fat WARN_ON(!in_interrupt()) in there.
It's a sledgehammer, but as far as I can see the only thing which might
help. Opinions?
Thanks,
Christian.
>
> Converting NAKs into doc patches should at least eventually get rid of
> the worst confusions we're dealing with here.
>
> Cheers, Sima
Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 11:48 +0100 schrieb Christian König:
[...]
> I was considering to change the dma_fence semantics so that
> dma_fence_signal() could only be called from the interrupt contexts of
> devices and then put a big fat WARN_ON(!in_interrupt()) in there.
>
> It's a sledgehammer, but as far as I can see the only thing which might
> help. Opinions?
That's not going to fly. As soon as you are dealing with device drivers
that use IRQ threads, either voluntarily or even involuntarily on RT
kernels, the dma_fence_signal will be from process context.
Regards,
Lucas
Am 02.11.23 um 12:19 schrieb Lucas Stach:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 02.11.2023 um 11:48 +0100 schrieb Christian König:
> [...]
>> I was considering to change the dma_fence semantics so that
>> dma_fence_signal() could only be called from the interrupt contexts of
>> devices and then put a big fat WARN_ON(!in_interrupt()) in there.
>>
>> It's a sledgehammer, but as far as I can see the only thing which might
>> help. Opinions?
> That's not going to fly. As soon as you are dealing with device drivers
> that use IRQ threads, either voluntarily or even involuntarily on RT
> kernels, the dma_fence_signal will be from process context.
Ah shit, yeah of course. We use IRQ threads in amdgpu for the second
interrupt ring as well.
Ok, nail that coffin. Any other ideas how we could enforce this?
Thanks,
Christian.
>
> Regards,
> Lucas