[Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC 0/1] drm/pl111: Initial drm/kms driver for pl111

[Rob Clark]

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 06.08.2013, 10:14 -0400 schrieb Rob Clark:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de> wrote:
>> > Am Dienstag, den 06.08.2013, 12:31 +0100 schrieb Tom Cooksey:
>> >> Hi Rob,
>> >>
>> >> +lkml
>> >>
>> >> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Tom Cooksey <tom.cooksey at arm.com>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> >  * It abuses flags parameter of DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_DUMB to
>> >> > >> >> >    also allocate buffers for the GPU. Still not sure how to
>> >> > >> >> >    resolve this as we don't use DRM for our GPU driver.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> any thoughts/plans about a DRM GPU driver?  Ideally long term
>> >> > >> >> (esp. once the dma-fence stuff is in place), we'd have
>> >> > >> >> gpu-specific drm (gpu-only, no kms) driver, and SoC/display
>> >> > >> >> specific drm/kms driver, using prime/dmabuf to share between
>> >> > >> >> the two.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > The "extra" buffers we were allocating from armsoc DDX were really
>> >> > >> > being allocated through DRM/GEM so we could get an flink name
>> >> > >> > for them and pass a reference to them back to our GPU driver on
>> >> > >> > the client side. If it weren't for our need to access those
>> >> > >> > extra off-screen buffers with the GPU we wouldn't need to
>> >> > >> > allocate them with DRM at all. So, given they are really "GPU"
>> >> > >> > buffers, it does absolutely make sense to allocate them in a
>> >> > >> > different driver to the display driver.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > However, to avoid unnecessary memcpys & related cache
>> >> > >> > maintenance ops, we'd also like the GPU to render into buffers
>> >> > >> > which are scanned out by the display controller. So let's say
>> >> > >> > we continue using DRM_IOCTL_MODE_CREATE_DUMB to allocate scan
>> >> > >> > out buffers with the display's DRM driver but a custom ioctl
>> >> > >> > on the GPU's DRM driver to allocate non scanout, off-screen
>> >> > >> > buffers. Sounds great, but I don't think that really works
>> >> > >> > with DRI2. If we used two drivers to allocate buffers, which
>> >> > >> > of those drivers do we return in DRI2ConnectReply? Even if we
>> >> > >> > solve that somehow, GEM flink names are name-spaced to a
>> >> > >> > single device node (AFAIK). So when we do a DRI2GetBuffers,
>> >> > >> > how does the EGL in the client know which DRM device owns GEM
>> >> > >> > flink name "1234"? We'd need some pretty dirty hacks.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> You would return the name of the display driver allocating the
>> >> > >> buffers.  On the client side you can use generic ioctls to go from
>> >> > >> flink -> handle -> dmabuf.  So the client side would end up opening
>> >> > >> both the display drm device and the gpu, but without needing to know
>> >> > >> too much about the display.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I think the bit I was missing was that a GEM bo for a buffer imported
>> >> > > using dma_buf/PRIME can still be flink'd. So the display controller's
>> >> > > DRM driver allocates scan-out buffers via the DUMB buffer allocate
>> >> > > ioctl. Those scan-out buffers than then be exported from the
>> >> > > dispaly's DRM driver and imported into the GPU's DRM driver using
>> >> > > PRIME. Once imported into the GPU's driver, we can use flink to get a
>> >> > > name for that buffer within the GPU DRM driver's name-space to return
>> >> > > to the DRI2 client. That same namespace is also what DRI2 back-
>> >> > > buffers are allocated from, so I think that could work... Except...
>> >> >
>> >> > (and.. the general direction is that things will move more to just use
>> >> > dmabuf directly, ie. wayland or dri3)
>> >>
>> >> I agree, DRI2 is the only reason why we need a system-wide ID. I also
>> >> prefer buffers to be passed around by dma_buf fd, but we still need to
>> >> support DRI2 and will do for some time I expect.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > >> > Anyway, that latter case also gets quite difficult. The "GPU"
>> >> > >> > DRM driver would need to know the constraints of the display
>> >> > >> > controller when allocating buffers intended to be scanned out.
>> >> > >> > For example, pl111 typically isn't behind an IOMMU and so
>> >> > >> > requires physically contiguous memory. We'd have to teach the
>> >> > >> > GPU's DRM driver about the constraints of the display HW. Not
>> >> > >> > exactly a clean driver model. :-(
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > I'm still a little stuck on how to proceed, so any ideas
>> >> > >> > would greatly appreciated! My current train of thought is
>> >> > >> > having a kind of SoC-specific DRM driver which allocates
>> >> > >> > buffers for both display and GPU within a single GEM
>> >> > >> > namespace. That SoC-specific DRM driver could then know the
>> >> > >> > constraints of both the GPU and the display HW. We could then
>> >> > >> > use PRIME to export buffers allocated with the SoC DRM driver
>> >> > >> > and import them into the GPU and/or display DRM driver.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Usually if the display drm driver is allocating the buffers that
>> >> > >> might be scanned out, it just needs to have minimal knowledge of
>> >> > >> the GPU (pitch alignment constraints).  I don't think we need a
>> >> > >> 3rd device just to allocate buffers.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > While Mali can render to pretty much any buffer, there is a mild
>> >> > > performance improvement to be had if the buffer stride is aligned to
>> >> > > the AXI bus's max burst length when drawing to the buffer.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suspect the display controllers might frequently benefit if the
>> >> > pitch is aligned to AXI burst length too..
>> >>
>> >> If the display controller is going to be reading from linear memory
>> >> I don't think it will make much difference - you'll just get an extra
>> >> 1-2 bus transactions per scanline. With a tile-based GPU like Mali,
>> >> you get those extra transactions per _tile_ scan-line and as such,
>> >> the overhead is more pronounced.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > So in some respects, there is a constraint on how buffers which will
>> >> > > be drawn to using the GPU are allocated. I don't really like the idea
>> >> > > of teaching the display controller DRM driver about the GPU buffer
>> >> > > constraints, even if they are fairly trivial like this. If the same
>> >> > > display HW IP is being used on several SoCs, it seems wrong somehow
>> >> > > to enforce those GPU constraints if some of those SoCs don't have a
>> >> > > GPU.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I suppose you could get min_pitch_alignment from devicetree, or
>> >> > something like this..
>> >> >
>> >> > In the end, the easy solution is just to make the display allocate to
>> >> > the worst-case pitch alignment.  In the early days of dma-buf
>> >> > discussions, we kicked around the idea of negotiating or
>> >> > programatically describing the constraints, but that didn't really
>> >> > seem like a bounded problem.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah - I was around for some of those discussions and agree it's not
>> >> really an easy problem to solve.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > We may also then have additional constraints when sharing buffers
>> >> > > between the display HW and video decode or even camera ISP HW.
>> >> > > Programmatically describing buffer allocation constraints is very
>> >> > > difficult and I'm not sure you can actually do it - there's some
>> >> > > pretty complex constraints out there! E.g. I believe there's a
>> >> > > platform where Y and UV planes of the reference frame need to be in
>> >> > > separate DRAM banks for real-time 1080p decode, or something like
>> >> > > that?
>> >> >
>> >> > yes, this was discussed.  This is different from pitch/format/size
>> >> > constraints.. it is really just a placement constraint (ie. where do
>> >> > the physical pages go).  IIRC the conclusion was to use a dummy
>> >> > devices with it's own CMA pool for attaching the Y vs UV buffers.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Anyway, I guess my point is that even if we solve how to allocate
>> >> > > buffers which will be shared between the GPU and display HW such that
>> >> > > both sets of constraints are satisfied, that may not be the end of
>> >> > > the story.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > that was part of the reason to punt this problem to userspace ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > In practice, the kernel drivers doesn't usually know too much about
>> >> > the dimensions/format/etc.. that is really userspace level knowledge.
>> >> > There are a few exceptions when the kernel needs to know how to setup
>> >> > GTT/etc for tiled buffers, but normally this sort of information is up
>> >> > at the next level up (userspace, and drm_framebuffer in case of
>> >> > scanout).  Userspace media frameworks like GStreamer already have a
>> >> > concept of format/caps negotiation.  For non-display<->gpu sharing, I
>> >> > think this is probably where this sort of constraint negotiation
>> >> > should be handled.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that user-space will know which devices will access the buffer
>> >> and thus can figure out at least a common pixel format. Though I'm not
>> >> so sure userspace can figure out more low-level details like alignment
>> >> and placement in physical memory, etc.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, assuming user-space can figure out how a buffer should be
>> >> stored in memory, how does it indicate this to a kernel driver and
>> >> actually allocate it? Which ioctl on which device does user-space
>> >> call, with what parameters? Are you suggesting using something like
>> >> ION which exposes the low-level details of how buffers are laid out in
>> >> physical memory to userspace? If not, what?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I strongly disagree with exposing low-level hardware details like tiling
>> > to userspace. If we have to do the negotiation of those things in
>> > userspace we will end up with having to pipe those information through
>> > things like the wayland protocol. I don't see how this could ever be
>> > considered a good idea.
>>
>> well, unless userspace mmap's via a de-tiling gart type thing, I don't
>> think tiling can be invisible to userspace.
>>
> Why is mmap considered to be such a strong use-case for DMABUFs? After
> all we are trying to _avoid_ mmapping shared buffers where ever
> possible.

I don't know if I'd call it a strong use-case, as much as a good
worst-case to consider

>> But if two GPU's have some overlap in supportable tiled formats, and
>> you have one gpu doing app and one doing compositor, and you want to
>> use tiling for the shared buffers, you need something in the wayland
>> protocol to figure out what the common supported formats are between
>> the two sides.  I suppose it shouldn't be too hard to add a
>> standardized (cross-driver) format-negotiation protocol, and in the
>> absence of that fallback to non tiled format for shared buffers.
>>
> I don't see how tiling format negotiation would be easier in userspace
> than in the kernel. If we can come up with a scheme for that, we can as
> well do it in the kernel.

well.. I guess I don't see how it would be easier in the kernel than
in userspace ;-)

But if you can come up with a good way to add it to dev->dma_params
that everyone can agree on, I don't mind.  I suppose I'm starting with
the assumption that it will be difficult/impossible to get everyone to
agree on this, but I don't mind being proved wrong.

>> > I would rather see kernel drivers negotiating those things at dmabuf
>> > attach time in way invisible to userspace. I agree that this negotiation
>> > thing isn't easy to get right for the plethora of different hardware
>> > constraints we see today, but I would rather see this in-kernel, where
>> > we have the chance to fix things up if needed, than in a fixed userspace
>> > interface.
>>
>> Well, if you can think of a sane way to add that to dev->dma_params,
>> and if it isn't visible if userspace mmap's a buffer, then we could
>> handle that in the kernel.  But I don't think that will be the case.
>>
> I'm sure we can come up with something sane to put it in there. The
> userspace mmap thing is a bit complicated to deal with, but I have the
> feeling that going through a slow path if you really need mmap is a
> reasonable thing to do.
> For example we could just make mmap some form of attach that forces
> linear layout if the exporter isn't able to give userspace a linear
> mapping from a tiled buffer by using GART or VM.

I guess I don't object to mmap being a slow path (as long is it
doesn't end up requiring a slow path on hw where this otherwise
wouldn't be needed).

BR,
-R

> Regards,
> Lucas
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Lucas Stach                 |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5076 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
>