Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Message-ID: <d93375df-215a-2325-ba6d-4616dfed0947@collabora.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 22:28:13 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 13/18] drm/shmem-helper: Add memory shrinker
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
        Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>,
        Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Qiang Yu <yuq825@gmail.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        Emma Anholt <emma@anholt.net>, Melissa Wen <mwen@igalia.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@collabora.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
References: <20230914232721.408581-1-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
 <20230914232721.408581-14-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
 <20230915104633.0d5c3932@collabora.com>
 <454c464e-4534-7ec3-6d38-49b7df83c7be@collabora.com>
 <20230926093517.11a172ad@collabora.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230926093517.11a172ad@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/26/23 10:35, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> The naming becomes quite confusing, with drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked()
>>> and drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked(). By the look of it, it seems to
>>> do exactly the opposite of drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked(), except for
>>> the missing ->evicted = true, which we can move here anyway, given
>>> drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked() explicitly set it to false anyway. The
>>> other thing that's missing is the
>>> drm_gem_shmem_update_pages_state_locked(), but it can also be moved
>>> there I think, if the the ->madv update happens before the
>>> drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked() call in
>>> drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked().
>>>
>>> So, how about renaming this function drm_gem_shmem_swapout_locked()?  
>> The swapout name would be misleading to me because pages aren't moved to
>> swap, but allowed to be moved. I'll rename it to
>> drm_gem_shmem_shrinker_unpin_locked().
> If you go this way, I would argue that drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked() is
> just as incorrect as drm_gem_shmem_swapout_locked(), in that
> drm_gem_get_pages() might just return pages that were flagged
> reclaimable but never reclaimed/swapped-out. I do think that having
> some symmetry in the naming makes more sense than being 100% accurate.

That function is internal to drm-shmem and is used for both eviction and
purging. Having "swap-out" invoked by the purging also doesn't sound good.

Given that the function in question mainly "unmaps" the pages, what
about drm_gem_shmem_shkinker_unmap_pages_locked()?

>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
>>>>  	struct drm_device *dev = obj->dev;
>>>>  
>>>>  	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
>>>>  
>>>> -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, !drm_gem_shmem_is_purgeable(shmem));
>>>> +	if (shmem->evicted)
>>>> +		return;
>>>>  
>>>>  	dma_unmap_sgtable(dev->dev, shmem->sgt, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL, 0);  
>>> Are we sure we'll always have sgt != NULL? IIRC, if the GEM is only
>>> mmap-ed in userspace, get_sgt() is not necessarily called by the driver
>>> (needed to map in GPU space), and we have a potential NULL deref here.
>>> Maybe that changed at some point in the series, and sgt is
>>> unconditionally populated when get_pages() is called now.  
>> The sgt is always set in this function because it's part of shrinker and
>> shrinker doesn't touch GEMs without sgt.
> Okay, that's questionable. Why would we not want to reclaim BOs that
> are only mapped in userspace (sgt == NULL && pages_use_count > 0 &&
> pages_pin_count == 0)? I agree that creating such a BO would be
> pointless (why create a buffer through DRM if it's not passed to the
> GPU), but that's still something the API allows...

This is a pre-existing behaviour. There is no driver that uses pages
without sgt, hence there is nobody to test such code paths.

Maybe will worth to explicitly prohibit usage of get_pages() without
having sgt for clarity. But this should be separate to this patchset, IMO.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry