lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] drm/amdgpu: Ensure kunmap is called on error
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 08:09:29AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.12.21 um 04:37 schrieb Ira Weiny:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:37:32PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 11.12.21 um 00:24 schrieb ira.weiny@intel.com:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > The default case leaves the buffer object mapped in error.
> > > >
> > > > Add amdgpu_bo_kunmap() to that case to ensure the mapping is cleaned up.
> > > Mhm, good catch. But why do you want to do this in the first place?
> > I'm not sure I understand the question.
> >
> > Any mapping of memory should be paired with an unmapping when no longer needed.
> > And this is supported by the call to amdgpu_bo_kunmap() in the other
> > non-default cases.
> >
> > Do you believe the mapping is not needed?
>
> No, the unmapping is not needed here. See the function amdgpu_bo_kmap(), it
> either creates the mapping or return the cached pointer.

Ah I missed that. Thanks.

>
> A call to amdgpu_bo_kunmap() is only done in a few places where we know that
> the created mapping most likely won't be needed any more. If that's not done
> the mapping is automatically destroyed when the BO is moved or freed up.
>
> I mean good bug fix, but you seem to see this as some kind of prerequisite
> to some follow up work converting TTM to use kmap_local() which most likely
> won't work in the first place.

Sure. I see now that it is more complicated than I thought but I never thought
of this as a strict prerequisite. Just something I found while trying to
figure out how this works.

How much of a speed up is it to maintain the ttm_bo_map_kmap map type? Could
this all be done with vmap and just remove the kmap stuff?

Ira

>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> >
> > Ira
> >
> > > Christian.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > NOTE: It seems like this function could use a fair bit of refactoring
> > > > but this is the easiest way to fix the actual bug.
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > nice
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
> > > > index 6f8de11a17f1..b3ffd0f6b35f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_uvd.c
> > > > @@ -889,6 +889,7 @@ static int amdgpu_uvd_cs_msg(struct amdgpu_uvd_cs_ctx *ctx,
> > > > return 0;
> > > > default:
> > > > + amdgpu_bo_kunmap(bo);
> > > > DRM_ERROR("Illegal UVD message type (%d)!\n", msg_type);
> > > > }
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-15 22:10    [W:0.112 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site