[RFC PATCH v3 09/11] drm, cgroup: Add per cgroup bw measure and control

Kenny Ho y2kenny at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 19:49:28 UTC 2019

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:11 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> I feel like a better approach would by to add a cgroup for the various
> engines on the gpu, and then also account all the sdma (or whatever the
> name of the amd copy engines is again) usage by ttm_bo moves to the right
> cgroup.  I think that's a more meaningful limitation. For direct thrashing
> control I think there's both not enough information available in the
> kernel (you'd need some performance counters to watch how much bandwidth
> userspace batches/CS are wasting), and I don't think the ttm eviction
> logic is ready to step over all the priority inversion issues this will
> bring up. Managing sdma usage otoh will be a lot more straightforward (but
> still has all the priority inversion problems, but in the scheduler that
> might be easier to fix perhaps with the explicit dependency graph - in the
> i915 scheduler we already have priority boosting afaiui).
My concern with hooking into the engine/ lower level is that the
engine may not be process/cgroup aware.  So the bandwidth tracking is
per device.  I am also wondering if this is also potentially be a case
of perfect getting in the way of good.  While ttm_bo_handle_move_mem
may not track everything, it is still a key function for a lot of the
memory operation.  Also, if the programming model is designed to
bypass the kernel then I am not sure if there are anything the kernel
can do.  (Things like kernel-bypass network stack comes to mind.)  All
that said, I will certainly dig deeper into the topic.


More information about the amd-gfx mailing list