[PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: cleanup shared fence removal
daniel at ffwll.ch
Fri Jun 28 09:41:06 UTC 2019
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:40 AM Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 28.06.19 um 09:30 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:32 AM Koenig, Christian
> > <Christian.Koenig at amd.com> wrote:
> >> Am 27.06.19 um 21:57 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> [SNIP]
> >>>> Again, the reason to remove the fence from one reservation object is
> >>>> simply that it is faster to remove it from one object than to attach a
> >>>> new fence to all other objects.
> >>> Hm I guess I was lead astray by the eviction_fence invalidation thing
> >>> in enable_signaling, and a few other places that freed the bo right
> >>> afters (like amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm_free_memory_of_gpu), where removing
> >>> the fences first and then freeing the bo is kinda pointless.
> >> AH! Now I know where your missing puzzle piece is.
> >> See when we free a buffer object TTM puts it on the delayed delete list
> >> to make sure that it gets freed up only after all fences are signaled.
> >> So this is essentially to make sure the BO gets freed up immediately.
> > Well yeah you have to wait for outstanding rendering. Everyone does
> > that. The problem is that ->eviction_fence does not represent
> > rendering, it's a very contrived way to implement the ->notify_move
> > callback.
> > For real fences you have to wait for rendering to complete, putting
> > aside corner cases like destroying an entire context with all its
> > pending rendering. Not really something we should optimize for I
> > think.
> No, real fences I don't need to wait for the rendering to complete either.
> If userspace said that this per process resource is dead and can be
> removed, we don't need to wait for it to become idle.
But why did you attach a fence in the first place?
> >>> Now with your insistence that I'm getting something wrong I guess the
> >>> you're talking about the unbind case, where the bo survives, but it's
> >>> mapping disappears, and hence that specific eviction_fence needs to be
> >>> removed.
> >>> And yeah there I guess just removing the magic eviction fence is
> >>> cheaper than replacing all the others.
> >> If possible I actually want to apply this to the general case of freeing
> >> up per process resources.
> >> In other words when we don't track resource usage on a per submission
> >> basis freeing up resources is costly because we always have to wait for
> >> the last submission.
> >> But if we can prevent further access to the resource using page tables
> >> it is perfectly valid to free it as soon as the page tables are up to date.
> > Still not seeing how you can use this outside of the magic amdkfd
> > eviction_fence.
> As I explained you have a per process resource and userspace says that
> this one can go away.
> As far as I can see it is perfectly valid to remove all fences from this
> process as soon as the page tables are up to date.
I'm not objecting the design, but just the implementation.
> > So with the magic amdkfd_eviction fence I agree this makes sense. The
> > problem I'm having here is that the magic eviction fence itself
> > doesn't make sense. What I expect will happen (in terms of the new
> > dynamic dma-buf stuff, I don't have the ttm-ism ready to explain it in
> > those concepts).
> > - when you submit command buffers, you _dont_ attach fences to all
> > involved buffers
> That's not going to work because then the memory management then thinks
> that the buffer is immediately movable, which it isn't,
I guess we need to fix that then. I pretty much assumed that
->notify_move could add whatever fences you might want to add. Which
would very neatly allow us to solve this problem here, instead of
coming up with fake fences and fun stuff like that.
If ->notify_move can't add fences, then the you have to attach the
right fences to all of the bo, all the time. And a CS model where
userspace just updates the working set and keeps submitting stuff,
while submitting new batches. And the kernel preempts the entire
context if memory needs to be evicted, and re-runs it only once the
working set is available again.
No the eviction_fence is not a good design solution for this, and imo
you should have rejected that. Who cares if the amdkfd people didn't
want to put in the work. But that ship sailed, so lets at least not
spread this more.
> > - when you get a ->notify_move there's currently 2 options:
> > 1. inefficient way: wait for the latest command buffer to complete, as
> > a defensive move. To do that you attach the fence from that command
> > buffer to the obj in your notifiy_move callback (the kerneldoc doesn't
> > explain this, but I think we really need this).
> > 2. efficient way: You just unmap from pagetables (and eat/handle the
> > fault if there is any).
> Exactly yeah. As far as I can see for freeing things up that is a
> perfectly valid approach as long as you have a VM which prevents
> accessing this memory.
> See ttm_bo_individualize_resv() as well, here we do something similar
> for GFX what the KFD does when it releases memory.
Uh wut. I guess more funky tricks I need to first learn about, but
yeah doesn't make much sense ot me right now.
> E.g. for per process resources we copy over the current fences into an
> individualized reservation object, to make sure that this can be freed
> up at some time in the future.
Why are you deleteing an object where others outside of your driver
can still add fences? Just from this description this doesn't make
sense to me ...
One idea (without reading the code): Does ttm no have a dedicated
active reference for its own mapping, instead fully relying on the
fences in the reservation object? So if you have something imported
you always wait if the other side keeps rendering?
I mean you can "fix" this by replacing the resv object you're using,
but maybe the real deal is a design bug in ttm failing to keep track
of which mappings are still needed. I guess since it only tracks
backing storage and not mappings that's not a surprise. i915 doesn't
need this, and again I don't think that's reasonable design which
should be promoted in core functionality.
Or something else again?
> But I really want to go a step further and say ok, all fences from this
> process can be removed after we updated the page tables.
> > No where do you need to remove a fence, because you never attached a
> > bogus fence.
> > Now with the magic eviction trick amdkfd uses, you can't do that,
> > because you need to attach this magic fence to all buffers, all the
> > time. And since it still needs to work like a fence it's one-shot
> > only, i.e. instead of a reuseable ->notify_move callback you need to
> > create a new fence every time ->enable_signalling is called. So in a
> > way replacing fences is just an artifact of some very, very crazy
> > calling convention.
> > If you have a real callback, there's no need for cycling through
> > fences, and therefore there's also no need to optimize their removal.
> > Or did you work under the assumption that ->notify_move cannot attach
> > new fences, and therefore you'd have to roll this magic fence trick to
> > even more places?
> Well that notify_move approach was what was initially suggested by the
> KFD team as well. The problem is simply that there is no general
> notify_move callback for buffers yet.
> Adding that one is exactly what my patches for dynamic DMA-buf are
> currently doing :)
Ok, so we agree at least for the amdkfd that the ->notify_move is the
right solution here. Imo lets get that done and remove eviction_fence,
instead of promoting that design pattern even more.
> >>> Now I guess I understand the mechanics of this somewhat, and what
> >>> you're doing, and lit ooks even somewhat safe. But I have no idea what
> >>> this is supposed to achieve. It feels a bit like ->notify_move, but
> >>> implemented in the most horrible way possible. Or maybe something
> >>> else.
> >>> Really no idea.
> >>> And given that we've wasted I few pages full of paragraphs already on
> >>> trying to explain what your new little helper is for, when it's safe
> >>> to use, when it's maybe not a good idea, and we still haven't even
> >>> bottomed out on what this is for ... well I really don't think it's a
> >>> good idea to inflict this into core code. Because just blindly
> >>> removing normal fences is not safe.
> >>> Especially with like half a sentence of kerneldoc that explains
> >>> nothing of all this complexity.
> > Still makes no sense to me to have in core code.
> Well it is still better to have this in the core code than messing with
> the reservation object internals in the driver code.
Uh no. Imo if you do really funky stuff and abuse fences to get a
one-shot callback, then you get to keep the cost of maintaining that.
You _are_ already fundamentally tearing down the abstraction
dma_fence/resv_obj is supposed to provide. I mean you're essentially
relying on the exporter calling ->enable_signalling (of the magic
fence) at roughly the spot where it would call ->notify_move. All
without that being documented or clarified as how it's supposed to be
done. Accessing a few private fields is the least offense here :-)
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
More information about the amd-gfx