[PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: improve VM state machine documentation
Christian König
ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com
Sat Sep 1 08:16:17 UTC 2018
Am 01.09.2018 um 01:51 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
> Thanks for this. A few comments and a question inline.
>
> On 2018-08-31 09:27 AM, Christian König wrote:
>> Since we have a lot of FAQ on the VM state machine try to improve the
>> documentation by adding functions for each state move.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
>> index a9275a99d793..40c22635fefd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
>> @@ -204,6 +204,69 @@ static unsigned amdgpu_vm_bo_size(struct amdgpu_device *adev, unsigned level)
>> return AMDGPU_GPU_PAGE_ALIGN(amdgpu_vm_num_entries(adev, level) * 8);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted - vm_bo is evicted
>> + *
>> + * @vm_bo: vm_bo which is evicted
>> + *
>> + * State for PDs/PTs and per VM BOs which are not at the location they should
>> + * be.
>> + */
>> +static void amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *vm_bo)
>> +{
>> + struct amdgpu_vm *vm = vm_bo->vm;
>> + struct amdgpu_bo *bo = vm_bo->bo;
>> +
>> + vm_bo->moved = true;
>> + if (bo->tbo.type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
>> + list_move(&vm_bo->vm_status, &vm->evicted);
>> + else
>> + list_move_tail(&vm_bo->vm_status, &vm->evicted);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated - vm_bo is reloacted
>> + *
>> + * @vm_bo: vm_bo which is relocated
>> + *
>> + * State for PDs/PTs which needs to update their parent PD.
>> + */
>> +static void amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *vm_bo)
>> +{
>> + list_move(&vm_bo->vm_status, &vm_bo->vm->relocated);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * amdgpu_vm_bo_moved - vm_bo is moved
>> + *
>> + * @vm_bo: vm_bo which is moved
>> + *
>> + * State for per VM and normal BOs which are moved, but that change is not yet
>> + * reflected in the page tables.
> I have a question here. Why does amdgpu_cs_vm_handling call
> amdgpu_vm_bo_update manually for its BO list entries? Wouldn't it be
> enough to just call amdgpu_vm_handle_moved?
No, it is still possible that the mapping of the BO was never updated
because the VM page tables where evicted.
We still need to make sure that all BOs of the current submission are
updated correctly.
>
>> + */
>> +static void amdgpu_vm_bo_moved(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *vm_bo)
>> +{
>> + struct amdgpu_vm *vm = vm_bo->vm;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&vm->moved_lock);
>> + list_move(&vm_bo->vm_status, &vm->moved);
>> + spin_unlock(&vm->moved_lock);
> If vm->moved_lock protects the moved list, do we also need to take it
> whenever something is moved from that list?
Correct, yes.
> That could potentially be
> any list_move operation that uses vm_bo->vm_status. I found one case
> below where that may not be handled correctly.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * amdgpu_vm_bo_idle - vm_bo is idle
>> + *
>> + * @vm_bo: vm_bo which is now idle
>> + *
>> + * State for PDs/PTs and per VM BOs which have gone through the state machine
>> + * and are now idle.
>> + */
>> +static void amdgpu_vm_bo_idle(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *vm_bo)
>> +{
>> + list_move(&vm_bo->vm_status, &vm_bo->vm->idle);
>> + vm_bo->moved = false;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * amdgpu_vm_bo_base_init - Adds bo to the list of bos associated with the vm
>> *
>> @@ -232,9 +295,9 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_bo_base_init(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *base,
>>
>> vm->bulk_moveable = false;
>> if (bo->tbo.type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
>> - list_move(&base->vm_status, &vm->relocated);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated(base);
>> else
>> - list_move(&base->vm_status, &vm->idle);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_idle(base);
>>
>> if (bo->preferred_domains &
>> amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain(bo->tbo.mem.mem_type))
>> @@ -245,8 +308,7 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_bo_base_init(struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *base,
>> * is currently evicted. add the bo to the evicted list to make sure it
>> * is validated on next vm use to avoid fault.
>> * */
>> - list_move_tail(&base->vm_status, &vm->evicted);
>> - base->moved = true;
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted(base);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -342,9 +404,7 @@ int amdgpu_vm_validate_pt_bos(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct amdgpu_vm *vm,
>> break;
>>
>> if (bo->tbo.type != ttm_bo_type_kernel) {
>> - spin_lock(&vm->moved_lock);
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->moved);
>> - spin_unlock(&vm->moved_lock);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_moved(bo_base);
>> } else {
>> if (vm->use_cpu_for_update)
>> r = amdgpu_bo_kmap(bo, NULL);
>> @@ -352,7 +412,7 @@ int amdgpu_vm_validate_pt_bos(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct amdgpu_vm *vm,
>> r = amdgpu_ttm_alloc_gart(&bo->tbo);
>> if (r)
>> break;
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->relocated);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated(bo_base);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1123,8 +1183,7 @@ int amdgpu_vm_update_directories(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>> bo_base = list_first_entry(&vm->relocated,
>> struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base,
>> vm_status);
>> - bo_base->moved = false;
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->idle);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_idle(bo_base);
>>
>> bo = bo_base->bo->parent;
>> if (!bo)
>> @@ -1243,7 +1302,7 @@ static void amdgpu_vm_handle_huge_pages(struct amdgpu_pte_update_params *p,
>> if (entry->huge) {
>> /* Add the entry to the relocated list to update it. */
>> entry->huge = false;
>> - list_move(&entry->base.vm_status, &p->vm->relocated);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated(&entry->base);
>> }
>> return;
>> }
>> @@ -1746,9 +1805,9 @@ int amdgpu_vm_bo_update(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>> uint32_t mem_type = bo->tbo.mem.mem_type;
>>
>> if (!(bo->preferred_domains & amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain(mem_type)))
>> - list_add_tail(&bo_va->base.vm_status, &vm->evicted);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted(&bo_va->base);
>> else
>> - list_add(&bo_va->base.vm_status, &vm->idle);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_idle(&bo_va->base);
> There is a small change in behaviour here for clearing
> bo_va->base.moved. Not sure if it matters.
Using list_add is minimal more efficient.
>
>> }
>>
>> list_splice_init(&bo_va->invalids, &bo_va->valids);
>> @@ -2472,28 +2531,20 @@ void amdgpu_vm_bo_invalidate(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(bo_base, &bo->va, bo_list) {
>> struct amdgpu_vm *vm = bo_base->vm;
>> - bool was_moved = bo_base->moved;
>>
>> - bo_base->moved = true;
>> if (evicted && bo->tbo.resv == vm->root.base.bo->tbo.resv) {
>> - if (bo->tbo.type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->evicted);
>> - else
>> - list_move_tail(&bo_base->vm_status,
>> - &vm->evicted);
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted(bo_base);
> I think here it's possible that the BO was on the moved list. I think
> that means amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted should take the moved_lock just in case.
Good point, probably best if I split up the moved list into per VM BOs
and all other BOs.
That should make the locking much more clear.
Regards,
Christian.
>
> Regards,
> Felix
>
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> - if (was_moved)
>> + if (bo_base->moved)
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (bo->tbo.type == ttm_bo_type_kernel) {
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->relocated);
>> - } else {
>> - spin_lock(&bo_base->vm->moved_lock);
>> - list_move(&bo_base->vm_status, &vm->moved);
>> - spin_unlock(&bo_base->vm->moved_lock);
>> - }
>> + bo_base->moved = true;
>> + if (bo->tbo.type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_relocated(bo_base);
>> + else
>> + amdgpu_vm_bo_moved(bo_base);
>> }
>> }
>>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list