[PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: add AMDGPU_INFO_VM_STAT to return GPU VM
Christian König
ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 07:58:50 UTC 2023
How are the counters which the HUD consumes declared?
See what I want to avoid is a) to nail down the interface with the
kernel on specific values and b) make it possible to easily expose new
values.
In other words what we could do with fdinfo is to have something like this:
GALLIUM_FDINFO_HUD=drm-memory-vram,amd-evicted-vram,amd-mclk glxgears
And the HUD just displays the values the kernel provides without the
need to re-compile mesa when we want to add some more values nor have
the values as part of the UAPI.
Christian.
Am 24.01.23 um 08:37 schrieb Marek Olšák:
> The Gallium HUD doesn't consume strings. It only consumes values that
> are exposed as counters from the driver. In this case, we need the
> driver to expose evicted stats as counters. Each counter can set
> whether the value is absolute (e.g. memory usage) or monotonic (e.g.
> perf counter). Parsing fdinfo to get the values is undesirable.
>
> Marek
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 4:31 AM Christian König
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let's do this as valid in fdinfo.
>
> This way we can easily extend whatever the kernel wants to display
> as statistics in the userspace HUD.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> Am 21.01.23 um 01:45 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>> We badly need a way to query evicted memory usage. It's essential
>> for investigating performance problems and it uncovered the buddy
>> allocator disaster. Please either suggest an alternative, suggest
>> changes, or review. We need it ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marek
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:55 AM Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:23 AM Christian König
>> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.01.23 um 16:28 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 9:51 AM Christian König
>>> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 04.01.23 um 00:08 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>>>> I see about the access now, but did you even look
>>>> at the patch?
>>>
>>> I did look at the patch, but I haven't fully
>>> understood yet what you are trying to do here.
>>>
>>>
>>> First and foremost, it returns the evicted size of VRAM
>>> and visible VRAM, and returns visible VRAM usage. It
>>> should be obvious which stat includes the size of another.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Because what the patch does isn't even exposed to
>>>> common drm code, such as the preferred domain and
>>>> visible VRAM placement, so it can't be in fdinfo
>>>> right now.
>>>>
>>>> Or do you even know what fdinfo contains? Because
>>>> it contains nothing useful. It only has VRAM and
>>>> GTT usage, which we already have in the INFO ioctl,
>>>> so it has nothing that we need. We mainly need the
>>>> eviction information and visible VRAM information
>>>> now. Everything else is a bonus.
>>>
>>> Well the main question is what are you trying to get
>>> from that information? The eviction list for example
>>> is completely meaningless to userspace, that stuff
>>> is only temporary and will be cleared on the next CS
>>> again.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what you mean. The returned eviction stats
>>> look correct and are stable (they don't change much).
>>> You can suggest changes if you think some numbers are
>>> not reported correctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> What we could expose is the VRAM over-commit value,
>>> e.g. how much BOs which where supposed to be in VRAM
>>> are in GTT now. I think that's what you are looking
>>> for here, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> The VRAM overcommit value is "evicted_vram".
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also, it's undesirable to open and parse a text
>>>> file if we can just call an ioctl.
>>>
>>> Well I see the reasoning for that, but I also see
>>> why other drivers do a lot of the stuff we have as
>>> IOCTL as separate files in sysfs, fdinfo or debugfs.
>>>
>>> Especially repeating all the static information
>>> which were already available under sysfs in the INFO
>>> IOCTL was a design mistake as far as I can see. Just
>>> compare what AMDGPU and the KFD code is doing to
>>> what for example i915 is doing.
>>>
>>> Same for things like debug information about a
>>> process. The fdinfo stuff can be queried from
>>> external tools (gdb, gputop, umr etc...) as well
>>> which makes that interface more preferred.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing uses fdinfo in Mesa. No driver uses sysfs in
>>> Mesa except drm shims, noop drivers, and Intel for perf
>>> metrics. sysfs itself is an unusable mess for the PCIe
>>> query and is missing information.
>>>
>>> I'm not against exposing more stuff through sysfs and
>>> fdinfo for tools, but I don't see any reason why drivers
>>> should use it (other than for slowing down queries and
>>> initialization).
>>
>> That's what I'm asking: Is this for some tool or to make
>> some driver decision based on it?
>>
>> If you just want the numbers for over displaying then I
>> think it would be better to put this into fdinfo together
>> with the other existing stuff there.
>>
>>
>> If you want to make allocation decisions based on this
>> then we should have that as IOCTL or even better as
>> mmap() page between kernel and userspace. But in this
>> case I would also calculation the numbers completely
>> different as well.
>>
>> See we have at least the following things in the kernel:
>> 1. The eviction list in the VM.
>> Those are the BOs which are currently evicted and
>> tried to moved back in on the next CS.
>>
>> 2. The VRAM over commit value.
>> In other words how much more VRAM than available has
>> the application tried to allocate?
>>
>> 3. The visible VRAM usage by this application.
>>
>> The end goal is that the eviction list will go away, e.g.
>> we will always have stable allocations based on
>> allocations of other applications and not constantly swap
>> things in and out.
>>
>> When you now expose the eviction list to userspace we
>> will be stuck with this interface forever.
>>
>>
>> It's for the GALLIUM HUD.
>>
>> The only missing thing is the size of all evicted VRAM
>> allocations, and the size of all evicted visible VRAM
>> allocations.
>>
>> 1. No list is exposed. Only sums of buffer sizes are exposed.
>> Also, the eviction list has no meaning here. All lists are
>> treated equally, and mem_type is compared with
>> preferred_domains to determine where buffers are and where
>> they should be.
>>
>> 2. I'm not interested in the overcommit value. I'm only
>> interested in knowing the number of bytes of evicted VRAM
>> right now. It can be as variable as the CPU load, but in
>> practice it shouldn't be because PCIe doesn't have the
>> bandwidth to move things quickly.
>>
>> 3. Yes, that's true.
>>
>> Marek
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20230124/f0844e83/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list