[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/2] drm/virtio: Add window server support
On 02/12/2018 12:45 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>>> (a) software rendering: client allocates shared memory buffer, renders
>>> into it, then passes a file handle for that shmem block together
>>> with some meta data (size, format, ...) to the wayland server.
>>> (b) gpu rendering: client opens a render node, allocates a buffer,
>>> asks the cpu to renders into it, exports the buffer as dma-buf
>>> (DRM_IOCTL_PRIME_HANDLE_TO_FD), passes this to the wayland server
>>> (again including meta data of course).
>>> Is that correct?
>> Both are correct descriptions of typical behaviors. But it isn't spec'ed
>> anywhere who has to do the buffer allocation.
> Well, according to Pekka's reply it is spec'ed that way, for the
> existing buffer types. So for server allocated buffers you need
> (a) a wayland protocol extension and (b) support for the extension
> in the clients.
>> That's to say that if we cannot come up with a zero-copy solution for
>> unmodified clients, we should at least support zero-copy for cooperative
>> clients.
> "cooperative clients" == "client which has support for the wayland
> protocol extension", correct?

Guess it could be that, but I was rather thinking of clients that would
allocate the buffer for wl_shm_pool with DRM_VIRTGPU_RESOURCE_CREATE or
equivalent. Then that buffer would be exported and the fd passed using
the standard wl_shm protocol.

>>>> 4. QEMU maps that buffer to the guest's address space
>>>> (KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION), passes the guest PFN to the virtio driver
>>> That part is problematic. The host can't simply allocate something in
>>> the physical address space, because most physical address space
>>> management is done by the guest. All pci bars are mapped by the guest
>>> firmware for example (or by the guest OS in case of hotplug).
>> How can KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION ever be safely used then? I would have
>> expected that callers of that ioctl have enough knowledge to be able to
>> choose a physical address that won't conflict with the guest's kernel.
> Depends on the kind of region. Guest RAM is allocated and mapped by
> qemu, guest firmware can query qemu about RAM mappings using a special
> interface, then create a e820 memory map for the guest os. PCI device
> bars are mapped according to the pci config space registers, which in
> turn are initialized by the guest firmware, so it is basically in the
> guests hand where they show up.
>> I see that the ivshmem device in QEMU registers the memory region in BAR 2
>> of a PCI device instead. Would that be better in your opinion?
> Yes.

Would it make sense for virtio-gpu to map buffers to the guest via PCI
BARs? So we can use a single drm driver for both 2d and 3d.

>>>> 4. QEMU pops data+buffers from the virtqueue, looks up shmem FD for each
>>>> resource, sends data + FDs to the compositor with SCM_RIGHTS
>>> BTW: Is there a 1:1 relationship between buffers and shmem blocks? Or
>>> does the wayland protocol allow for offsets in buffer meta data, so you
>>> can place multiple buffers in a single shmem block?
>> The latter:
> Ah, good, that makes it alot easier.
> So, yes, using ivshmem would be one option. Tricky part here is the
> buffer management though. It's just a raw piece of memory. The guest
> proxy could mmap the pci bar and manage it. But then it is again either
> unmodified guest + copying the data, or modified client (which requests
> buffers from guest proxy) for zero-copy.
> Another idea would be extending stdvga. Basically qemu would have to
> use shmem as backing storage for vga memory instead of anonymous memory,
> so it would be very simliar to ivshmem on the host side. But on the
> guest side we have a drm driver for it (bochs-drm). So clients can
> allocate dumb drm buffers for software rendering, and the buffer would
> already be backed by a host shmem segment. Given that wayland already
> supports drm buffers for 3d rendering that could work without extending
> the wayland protocol. The client proxy would have to translate the drm
> buffer into an pci bar offset and pass it to the host side. The host
> proxy could register the pci bar as wl_shm_pool, then just pass through
> the offset to reference the individual buffers.
> Drawback of both approaches would be that software rendering and gpu
> rendering would use quite different code paths.

Yeah, would be great if we could find a way to avoid that.

> We also need a solution for the keymap shmem block. I guess the keymap
> doesn't change all that often, so maybe it is easiest to just copy it
> over (host proxy -> guest proxy) instead of trying to map the host shmem
> into the guest?

I think that should be fine for now. Something similar will have to
happen for the clipboard, which currently uses pipes to exchange data.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-13 15:28    [W:0.226 / U:1.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site