Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH v4 4/6] drm/nouveau: synchronize BOs when required

[Alexandre Courbot]

On 07/10/2014 10:04 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:25:59PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On architectures for which access to GPU memory is non-coherent,
> > caches need to be flushed and invalidated explicitly when BO control
> > changes between CPU and GPU.
> >
> > This patch adds buffer synchronization functions which invokes the
> > correct API (PCI or DMA) to ensure synchronization is effective.
> >
> > Based on the TTM DMA cache helper patches by Lucas Stach.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <dev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c  | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.h  |  2 ++
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_gem.c | 12 ++++++++
> >   3 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> > index 67e9e8e2e2ec..47e4e8886769 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bo.c
> > @@ -402,6 +402,60 @@ nouveau_bo_unmap(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo)
> >   		ttm_bo_kunmap(&nvbo->kmap);
> >   }
> >
> > +void
> > +nouveau_bo_sync_for_device(struct nouveau_bo *nvbo)
> > +{
> > +	struct nouveau_drm *drm = nouveau_bdev(nvbo->bo.bdev);
> > +	struct nouveau_device *device = nouveau_dev(drm->dev);
> > +	struct ttm_dma_tt *ttm_dma = (struct ttm_dma_tt *)nvbo->bo.ttm;
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	if (!ttm_dma)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	if (nv_device_is_cpu_coherent(device) || nvbo->force_coherent)
> > +		return;
>
> Is the is_cpu_coherent check really required? On coherent platforms the
> sync_for_foo should be a noop. It's the dma api's job to encapsulate this
> knowledge so that drivers can be blissfully ignorant. The explicit
> is_coherent check makes this a bit leaky. And same comment that underlying
> the bus-specifics dma-mapping functions are identical.

I think you are right, the is_cpu_coherent check should not be needed 
here. I still think we should have separate paths for the PCI/DMA cases 
though, unless you can point me to a source that clearly states that the 
PCI API is deprecated and that DMA should be used instead.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/