[PATCH 1/2] [WIP]drm/ttm: add waiter list to prevent allocation not in order
Christian König
ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com
Fri Jan 26 13:24:06 UTC 2018
Yes, exactly that's the problem.
See when you want to prevent a process B from allocating the memory
process A has evicted, you need to prevent all concurrent allocation.
And we don't do that because it causes a major performance drop.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 26.01.2018 um 14:21 schrieb Zhou, David(ChunMing):
> You patch will prevent concurrent allocation, and will result in
> allocation performance drop much.
>
> 发自坚果 Pro
>
> Christian K鰊ig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> 于 2018年1月26日
> 下午9:04写道：
>
> Attached is what you actually want to do cleanly implemented. But as I
> said this is a NO-GO.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> Am 26.01.2018 um 13:43 schrieb Christian König:
>>> After my investigation, this issue should be detect of TTM design
>>> self, which breaks scheduling balance.
>> Yeah, but again. This is indented design we can't change easily.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 26.01.2018 um 13:36 schrieb Zhou, David(ChunMing):
>>> I am off work, so reply mail by phone, the format could not be text.
>>>
>>> back to topic itself:
>>> the problem indeed happen on amdgpu driver, someone reports me that
>>> application runs with two instances, the performance are different.
>>> I also reproduced the issue with unit test(bo_eviction_test). They
>>> always think our scheduler isn't working as expected.
>>>
>>> After my investigation, this issue should be detect of TTM design
>>> self, which breaks scheduling balance.
>>>
>>> Further, if we run containers for our gpu, container A could run
>>> high score, container B runs low score with same benchmark.
>>>
>>> So this is bug that we need fix.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> David Zhou
>>>
>>> 发自坚果 Pro
>>>
>>> Christian K鰊ig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> 于 2018年1月26日
>>> 下午6:31写道：
>>>
>>> Am 26.01.2018 um 11:22 schrieb Chunming Zhou:
>>> > there is a scheduling balance issue about get node like:
>>> > a. process A allocates full memory and use it for submission.
>>> > b. process B tries to allocates memory, will wait for process A BO
>>> idle in eviction.
>>> > c. process A completes the job, process B eviction will put
>>> process A BO node,
>>> > but in the meantime, process C is comming to allocate BO, whill
>>> directly get node successfully, and do submission,
>>> > process B will again wait for process C BO idle.
>>> > d. repeat the above setps, process B could be delayed much more.
>>> >
>>> > later allocation must not be ahead of front in same place.
>>>
>>> Again NAK to the whole approach.
>>>
>>> At least with amdgpu the problem you described above never occurs
>>> because evictions are pipelined operations. We could only block for
>>> deleted regions to become free.
>>>
>>> But independent of that incoming memory requests while we make room for
>>> eviction are intended to be served first.
>>>
>>> Changing that is certainly a no-go cause that would favor memory hungry
>>> applications over small clients.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Change-Id: I3daa892e50f82226c552cc008a29e55894a98f18
>>> > Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou at amd.com>
>>> > ---
>>> > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 69
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> > include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h | 7 +++++
>>> > include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h | 7 +++++
>>> > 3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> > index d33a6bb742a1..558ec2cf465d 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>> > @@ -841,6 +841,58 @@ static int ttm_bo_add_move_fence(struct
>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > return 0;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > +static void ttm_man_init_waiter(struct ttm_bo_waiter *waiter,
>>> > + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > + const struct ttm_place *place)
>>> > +{
>>> > + waiter->tbo = bo;
>>> > + memcpy((void *)&waiter->place, (void *)place, sizeof(*place));
>>> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&waiter->list);
>>> > +}
>>> > +
>>> > +static void ttm_man_add_waiter(struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man,
>>> > + struct ttm_bo_waiter *waiter)
>>> > +{
>>> > + if (!waiter)
>>> > + return;
>>> > + spin_lock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + list_add_tail(&waiter->list, &man->waiter_list);
>>> > + spin_unlock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > +}
>>> > +
>>> > +static void ttm_man_del_waiter(struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man,
>>> > + struct ttm_bo_waiter *waiter)
>>> > +{
>>> > + if (!waiter)
>>> > + return;
>>> > + spin_lock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + if (!list_empty(&waiter->list))
>>> > + list_del(&waiter->list);
>>> > + spin_unlock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + kfree(waiter);
>>> > +}
>>> > +
>>> > +int ttm_man_check_bo(struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man,
>>> > + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > + const struct ttm_place *place)
>>> > +{
>>> > + struct ttm_bo_waiter *waiter, *tmp;
>>> > +
>>> > + spin_lock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(waiter, tmp, &man->waiter_list, list) {
>>> > + if ((bo != waiter->tbo) &&
>>> > + ((place->fpfn >= waiter->place.fpfn &&
>>> > + place->fpfn <= waiter->place.lpfn) ||
>>> > + (place->lpfn <= waiter->place.lpfn &&
>>> place->lpfn >=
>>> > + waiter->place.fpfn)))
>>> > + goto later_bo;
>>> > + }
>>> > + spin_unlock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + return true;
>>> > +later_bo:
>>> > + spin_unlock(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + return false;
>>> > +}
>>> > /**
>>> > * Repeatedly evict memory from the LRU for @mem_type until we
>>> create enough
>>> > * space, or we've evicted everything and there isn't enough space.
>>> > @@ -853,17 +905,26 @@ static int ttm_bo_mem_force_space(struct
>>> ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > {
>>> > struct ttm_bo_device *bdev = bo->bdev;
>>> > struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man = &bdev->man[mem_type];
>>> > + struct ttm_bo_waiter waiter;
>>> > int ret;
>>> >
>>> > + ttm_man_init_waiter(&waiter, bo, place);
>>> > + ttm_man_add_waiter(man, &waiter);
>>> > do {
>>> > ret = (*man->func->get_node)(man, bo, place, mem);
>>> > - if (unlikely(ret != 0))
>>> > + if (unlikely(ret != 0)) {
>>> > + ttm_man_del_waiter(man, &waiter);
>>> > return ret;
>>> > - if (mem->mm_node)
>>> > + }
>>> > + if (mem->mm_node) {
>>> > + ttm_man_del_waiter(man, &waiter);
>>> > break;
>>> > + }
>>> > ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, mem_type, place, ctx);
>>> > - if (unlikely(ret != 0))
>>> > + if (unlikely(ret != 0)) {
>>> > + ttm_man_del_waiter(man, &waiter);
>>> > return ret;
>>> > + }
>>> > } while (1);
>>> > mem->mem_type = mem_type;
>>> > return ttm_bo_add_move_fence(bo, man, mem);
>>> > @@ -1450,6 +1511,8 @@ int ttm_bo_init_mm(struct ttm_bo_device
>>> *bdev, unsigned type,
>>> > man->use_io_reserve_lru = false;
>>> > mutex_init(&man->io_reserve_mutex);
>>> > spin_lock_init(&man->move_lock);
>>> > + spin_lock_init(&man->wait_lock);
>>> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&man->waiter_list);
>>> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&man->io_reserve_lru);
>>> >
>>> > ret = bdev->driver->init_mem_type(bdev, type, man);
>>> > diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>> > index 2cd025c2abe7..0fce4dbd02e7 100644
>>> > --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>> > +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h
>>> > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
>>> > #include <linux/mm.h>
>>> > #include <linux/bitmap.h>
>>> > #include <linux/reservation.h>
>>> > +#include <drm/ttm/ttm_placement.h>
>>> >
>>> > struct ttm_bo_device;
>>> >
>>> > @@ -232,6 +233,12 @@ struct ttm_buffer_object {
>>> > struct mutex wu_mutex;
>>> > };
>>> >
>>> > +struct ttm_bo_waiter {
>>> > + struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo;
>>> > + struct ttm_place place;
>>> > + struct list_head list;
>>> > +};
>>> > +
>>> > /**
>>> > * struct ttm_bo_kmap_obj
>>> > *
>>> > diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>> b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>> > index 9b417eb2df20..dc6b8b4c9e06 100644
>>> > --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>> > +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h
>>> > @@ -293,6 +293,10 @@ struct ttm_mem_type_manager {
>>> > bool io_reserve_fastpath;
>>> > spinlock_t move_lock;
>>> >
>>> > + /* waiters in list */
>>> > + spinlock_t wait_lock;
>>> > + struct list_head waiter_list;
>>> > +
>>> > /*
>>> > * Protected by @io_reserve_mutex:
>>> > */
>>> > @@ -748,6 +752,9 @@ int ttm_bo_mem_space(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > struct ttm_mem_reg *mem,
>>> > struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx);
>>> >
>>> > +int ttm_man_check_bo(struct ttm_mem_type_manager *man,
>>> > + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > + const struct ttm_place *place);
>>> > void ttm_bo_mem_put(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
>>> ttm_mem_reg *mem);
>>> > void ttm_bo_mem_put_locked(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
>>> > struct ttm_mem_reg *mem);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> amd-gfx mailing list
>>> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20180126/dbe14939/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list