Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH] drm/msm: Check for the GPU IOMMU during bind

From: Bjorn Andersson
Date: Thu Jul 20 2023 - 14:32:26 EST


On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 03:20:44AM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 08:27:18PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >
> > On 07/07/2023 18:03, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 09:55:13PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 10/03/2023 00:20, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > > > While booting with amd,imageon on a headless target the GPU probe was
> > > > > failing with -ENOSPC in get_pages() from msm_gem.c.
> > > > >
> > > > > Investigation showed that the driver was using the default 16MB VRAM
> > > > > carveout because msm_use_mmu() was returning false since headless devices
> > > > > use a dummy parent device. Avoid this by extending the existing is_a2xx
> > > > > priv member to check the GPU IOMMU state on all platforms and use that
> > > > > check in msm_use_mmu().
> > > > >
> > > > > This works for memory allocations but it doesn't prevent the VRAM carveout
> > > > > from being created because that happens before we have a chance to check
> > > > > the GPU IOMMU state in adreno_bind.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a number of possible options to resolve this but none of them are
> > > > > very clean. The easiest way is to likely specify vram=0 as module parameter
> > > > > on headless devices so that the memory doesn't get wasted.
> > > >
> > > > This patch was on my plate for quite a while, please excuse me for
> > > > taking it so long.
> > >
> > > No worries. I'm also chasing a bunch of other stuff too.
> > >
> > > > I see the following problem with the current code. We have two different
> > > > instances than can access memory: MDP/DPU and GPU. And each of them can
> > > > either have or miss the MMU.
> > > >
> > > > For some time I toyed with the idea of determining whether the allocated
> > > > BO is going to be used by display or by GPU, but then I abandoned it. We
> > > > can have display BOs being filled by GPU, so handling it this way would
> > > > complicate things a lot.
> > > >
> > > > This actually rings a tiny bell in my head with the idea of splitting
> > > > the display and GPU parts to two different drivers, but I'm not sure
> > > > what would be the overall impact.
> > >
> > > As I now exclusively work on headless devices I would be 100% for this,
> > > but I'm sure that our laptop friends might not agree :)
> >
> > I do not know here. This is probably a question to Rob, as he better
> > understands the interaction between GPU and display parts of the userspace.
>
> I fully support this if it is feasible.
>

I second this.

> In our architecture, display and GPU are completely independent subsystems.
> Like Jordan mentioned, there are IOT products without display. And I wouldn't
> be surprised if there is a product with just display and uses software rendering.
>

And we have SA8295P/SA8540P with two MDSS instances and one GPU.

Regards,
Bjorn