Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:af89:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id iu9csp395972pxb; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:20:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxgK6DqSA+YkINmyJuyQ8iluhe/vIUAi1IcY2FPPibxYn4dth3nWp2WohHVhgtR4A/+N/M+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:72c7:: with SMTP id du7mr6163337ejc.137.1643361645541; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:20:45 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1643361645; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=FsRBcj9T76hdE6wDMcwACsQUu3bhFO8wzWVtULIJuTFqQS/qlE21vWgqiTIckNzkDg B1I8UaS1UjU8MjsMm43c6JG8AKa47ad+bqzGjZ1C+tL7ppyGdA8Z5CwAeTy4D9urpzMt Vd4uhNwyfg5cz5m+MjAOGldkQrJUzUZwEgdEvorwqu+leoJqpB4Keg50N4MnkMoiAfGH j09aZeMOKO/7Resf2RCQSbbJkC8zWlXYRDJtb4fAbGC9RyreoZ/T0Un/3otjw+mepV9l 7Qj+uIou79i1oW+RFHCZbHBhc23Rrpr2FxZrwxFsZ8ZtLChET0nvxRc0q42FwYxc5NAT R1hg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=c6akhfg1ArmaKTNtg2sBDeWAU0hwktpbHptiMeAy1ps=; b=Me0TcPE64Azb7mXBWXB/wUmlDt5INlvWn4NU/eWvF3KVm+445O0EUmsRX1FrSXBC/k mhhyu/2wg0cEBwn3oY6j9xORXiRnHM2Yfyd8Z6Sh/RRZYQoUO47BAKtGZrm2UxWdqyX4 RkKJhMl6S1pFP3DNRPWo4MrLHyWuy5iyexJqPwrW/vE5hpYAlh59Q2F8q0rjrQUOpqLY PewCtCwsFzKiDywqDCcfs10cpN/CgsmOrkB7OwwfHJet4HkPGC/4ajc3pdBbGL5jm16m wSrBQsf8GKIBVtHURrH1LJfXcxsUOUSnHWIjC5W4Thc5gIC35uG4ZN2bAB2sx3GG+Q1I rP6A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=eX9LINS9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s8si2550655edq.278.2022.01.28.01.19.57; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=eX9LINS9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243559AbiA0QOA (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:14:00 -0500 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:47113 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231837AbiA0QN7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:13:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1643300039; x=1674836039; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=QDeROQcMDq4DozBjzzP3pc8HJ6jhoXd94r+7dP703bk=; b=eX9LINS93SNk4GJ0Xin6PWAjNsLatLg8eksvoTDDpRhXKsz+PON6/9Gm 9x7zitYbOi/5HWgSkfaK7kGiPb5XNXlN2EiU2VuHcVyYaKveyWI+bYBcA lDvJXyJ4Hcr6qlfYw9vPR9kNYaDe1/nAlCZA8SLY8gZhQfo9w0r0fqoTw JdJ3tAVBqMKd+IEPHZnf/J2m6oDrPPmwTg2pN8xihs2hYw5Y5nrRzoNbA YmpZrZaU/e4QGYocoduUDd8jYqUzafMERLB8rgmRPRwxCxQBCnZbqTbnR vUtX/w/McoOgFQoe/2iqVzgpFFvyFTIwdjUKNnNwRcGAH+iT42TaJkmcf g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10239"; a="227569782" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,321,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="227569782" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jan 2022 08:13:59 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,321,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="674765072" Received: from anithaha-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO ldmartin-desk2) ([10.212.224.126]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jan 2022 08:13:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:13:58 -0800 From: Lucas De Marchi To: Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= Cc: Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= , linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/19] dma-buf-map: Add helper to initialize second map Message-ID: <20220127161358.hl4hiqnivbdwu7wm@ldmartin-desk2> X-Patchwork-Hint: comment References: <20220126203702.1784589-3-lucas.demarchi@intel.com> <20220127075728.ygwgorhnrwaocdqv@ldmartin-desk2> <3066c6a7-fc73-d34d-d209-a3ff6818dfb6@amd.com> <20220127093332.wnkd2qy4tvwg5i5l@ldmartin-desk2> <27aed6b1-b465-6a52-2b0a-d748c9798414@amd.com> <50cf1f2f-3fb2-8abb-7497-dafcd97935f3@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <50cf1f2f-3fb2-8abb-7497-dafcd97935f3@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:44:21PM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote: >Am 27.01.22 um 12:16 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:21:20AM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote: >>>Am 27.01.22 um 11:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >>>>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 01:33:32AM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote: >>>>>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:57:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>>>>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote: >>>>>>>Am 27.01.22 um 08:57 schrieb Lucas De Marchi: >>>>>>>>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 08:27:11AM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote: >>>>>>>>>Am 26.01.22 um 21:36 schrieb Lucas De Marchi: >>>>>>>>>>When dma_buf_map struct is passed around, it's useful to be able to >>>>>>>>>>initialize a second map that takes care of reading/writing to an offset >>>>>>>>>>of the original map. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Add a helper that copies the struct and add the offset to the proper >>>>>>>>>>address. >>>>>>>>>Well what you propose here can lead to all kind of problems and is >>>>>>>>>rather bad design as far as I can see. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The struct dma_buf_map is only to be filled in by the exporter and >>>>>>>>>should not be modified in this way by the importer. >>>>>>>>humn... not sure if I was? clear. There is no importer and exporter here. >>>>>>>Yeah, and exactly that's what I'm pointing out as problem here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are using the inter driver framework for something internal to the >>>>>>>driver. That is an absolutely clear NAK! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We could discuss that, but you guys are just sending around patches to do >>>>>>>this without any consensus that this is a good idea. >>>>>>Uh I suggested this, also we're already using dma_buf_map all over the >>>>>>place as a convenient abstraction. So imo that's all fine, it should allow >>>>>>drivers to simplify some code where on igpu it's in normal kernel memory >>>>>>and on dgpu it's behind some pci bar. >>>>>> >>>>>>Maybe we should have a better name for that struct (and maybe also a >>>>>>better place), but way back when we discussed that bikeshed I didn't come >>>>>>up with anything better really. >>>>>I suggest iosys_map since it abstracts access to IO and system memory. >>>>> >>>>>>>>There is a role delegation on filling out and reading a buffer when >>>>>>>>that buffer represents a struct layout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>struct bla { >>>>>>>> ????int a; >>>>>>>> ????int b; >>>>>>>> ????int c; >>>>>>>> ????struct foo foo; >>>>>>>> ????struct bar bar; >>>>>>>> ????int d; >>>>>>>>} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This implementation allows you to have: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????fill_foo(struct dma_buf_map *bla_map) { ... } >>>>>>>> ????fill_bar(struct dma_buf_map *bla_map) { ... } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>and the first thing these do is to make sure the map it's pointing to >>>>>>>>is relative to the struct it's supposed to write/read. Otherwise you're >>>>>>>>suggesting everything to be relative to struct bla, or to do the same >>>>>>>>I'm doing it, but IMO more prone to error: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????struct dma_buf_map map = *bla_map; >>>>>>>> ????dma_buf_map_incr(map, offsetof(...)); >>>>>>Wrt the issue at hand I think the above is perfectly fine code. The idea >>>>>>with dma_buf_map is really that it's just a special pointer, so writing >>>>>>the code exactly as pointer code feels best. Unfortunately you cannot make >>>>>>them typesafe (because of C), so the code sometimes looks a bit ugly. >>>>>>Otherwise we could do stuff like container_of and all that with >>>>>>typechecking in the macros. >>>>>I had exactly this code above, but after writting quite a few patches >>>>>using it, particularly with functions that have to write to 2 maps (see >>>>>patch 6 for example), it felt much better to have something to >>>>>initialize correctly from the start >>>>> >>>>> struct dma_buf_map other_map = *bla_map; >>>>> /* poor Lucas forgetting dma_buf_map_incr(map, offsetof(...)); */ >>>>> >>>>>is error prone and hard to debug since you will be reading/writting >>>>>from/to another location rather than exploding >>>>> >>>>>While with the construct below >>>>> >>>>> other_map; >>>>> ... >>>>> other_map = INITIALIZER() >>>>> >>>>>I can rely on the compiler complaining about uninitialized var. And >>>>>in most of the cases I can just have this single line in the beggining of the >>>>>function when the offset is constant: >>>>> >>>>> struct dma_buf_map other_map = INITIALIZER(bla_map, offsetof(..)); >>>>Hm yeah that's a good point that this allows us to rely on the compiler to >>>>check for uninitialized variables. >>>> >>>>Maybe include the above (with editing, but keeping the examples) in the >>>>kerneldoc to explain why/how to use this? With that the concept at least >>>>has my >>>> >>>>Acked-by: Daniel Vetter >>>> >>>>I'll leave it up to you & Christian to find a prettier color choice for >>>>the naming bikeshed. >>>There is one major issue remaining with this and that is dma_buf_vunmap(): >>> >>>void dma_buf_vunmap(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, struct dma_buf_map *map); >>> >>>Here we expect the original pointer as returned by dma_buf_map(), otherwise >>>we vunmap() the wrong area! >>> >>>For all TTM based driver this doesn't matter since we keep the vmap base >>>separately in the BO anyway (IIRC), but we had at least one case where this >>>made boom last year. >>Yeah but isn't that the same if it's just a void *? >> >>If you pass the wrong pointer to an unmap function and not exactly what >>you go from the map function, then things go boom. This is like >>complaining that the following code wont work >> >> u32 *stuff >> >> stuff = kmap_local(some_page); >> *stuff++ = 0; >> *stuff = 1; >> kunmap_locak(stuff); >> >>It's just ... don't do that :-) Also since we pass dma_buf_map by value >>and not by pointer anywhere, the risk of this happening is pretty low >>since you tend to work on a copy. Same with void * pointers really. >> >>Now if people start to pass around struct dma_buf_map * as pointers for >>anything else than out parameters, then we're screwed. But that's like >>passing around void ** for lolz, which is just wrong (except when it's an >>out parameter or actually an array of pointers ofc). >> >>Or I really don't get your concern and you mean something else? > >No that's pretty much it. It's just that we hide the pointer inside a >structure and it is absolutely not obvious to a driver dev that you >can't do: > >dma_buf_vmap(.., &map); >dma_buf_map_inr(&map, x); >dma_buf_vunmap(.., &map); > >As bare minimum I strongly suggest that we add some WARN_ONs to the >framework to check that the pointer given to dma_buf_vunmap() is at >least page aligned. Agreed, that should cover most of the cases. I can add a patch doing that. thanks Lucas De Marchi