[Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH 04/18] dma-fence: prime lockdep annotations
jglisse at redhat.com
Fri Jun 19 19:40:56 UTC 2020
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:30:32PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Am 2020-06-19 um 3:11 p.m. schrieb Alex Deucher:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:09 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:23:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>> The madness is only that device B's mmu notifier might need to wait
> >>>> for fence_B so that the dma operation finishes. Which in turn has to
> >>>> wait for device A to finish first.
> >>> So, it sound, fundamentally you've got this graph of operations across
> >>> an unknown set of drivers and the kernel cannot insert itself in
> >>> dma_fence hand offs to re-validate any of the buffers involved?
> >>> Buffers which by definition cannot be touched by the hardware yet.
> >>> That really is a pretty horrible place to end up..
> >>> Pinning really is right answer for this kind of work flow. I think
> >>> converting pinning to notifers should not be done unless notifier
> >>> invalidation is relatively bounded.
> >>> I know people like notifiers because they give a bit nicer performance
> >>> in some happy cases, but this cripples all the bad cases..
> >>> If pinning doesn't work for some reason maybe we should address that?
> >> Note that the dma fence is only true for user ptr buffer which predate
> >> any HMM work and thus were using mmu notifier already. You need the
> >> mmu notifier there because of fork and other corner cases.
> >> For nouveau the notifier do not need to wait for anything it can update
> >> the GPU page table right away. Modulo needing to write to GPU memory
> >> using dma engine if the GPU page table is in GPU memory that is not
> >> accessible from the CPU but that's never the case for nouveau so far
> >> (but i expect it will be at one point).
> >> So i see this as 2 different cases, the user ptr case, which does pin
> >> pages by the way, where things are synchronous. Versus the HMM cases
> >> where everything is asynchronous.
> >> I probably need to warn AMD folks again that using HMM means that you
> >> must be able to update the GPU page table asynchronously without
> >> fence wait. The issue for AMD is that they already update their GPU
> >> page table using DMA engine. I believe this is still doable if they
> >> use a kernel only DMA engine context, where only kernel can queue up
> >> jobs so that you do not need to wait for unrelated things and you can
> >> prioritize GPU page table update which should translate in fast GPU
> >> page table update without DMA fence.
> > All devices which support recoverable page faults also have a
> > dedicated paging engine for the kernel driver which the driver already
> > makes use of. We can also update the GPU page tables with the CPU.
> We have a potential problem with CPU updating page tables while the GPU
> is retrying on page table entries because 64 bit CPU transactions don't
> arrive in device memory atomically.
> We are using SDMA for page table updates. This currently goes through a
> the DRM GPU scheduler to a special SDMA queue that's used by kernel-mode
> only. But since it's based on the DRM GPU scheduler, we do use dma-fence
> to wait for completion.
Yeah my worry is mostly that some cross dma fence leak into it but
it should never happen realy, maybe there is a way to catch if it
does and print a warning.
So yes you can use dma fence, as long as they do not have cross-dep.
Another expectation is that they complete quickly and usualy page
table update do.
More information about the amd-gfx