[PATCH 3/3] drm/amdgpu: Fix pinned GART area accounting and fdinfo reporting
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at igalia.com
Mon Apr 29 13:45:56 UTC 2024
On 29/04/2024 12:11, Christian König wrote:
> Am 29.04.24 um 11:43 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
>>
>> On 26/04/2024 23:24, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-04-26 12:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at igalia.com>
>>>>
>>>> When commit b453e42a6e8b ("drm/amdgpu: Add new placement for
>>>> preemptible
>>>> SG BOs") added a new TTM region it missed to notice the conceptual
>>>> imbalance in GART pin size accounting as done in amdgpu_bo_pin/unpin.
>>>>
>>>> That imbalance leads to such objects getting accounted against the
>>>> resource, but are not un-accounted when unpinned.
>>>
>>> AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT is mostly used for userptr BOs, which cannot be
>>> pinned. In any case you should make sure that the accounting is
>>> consistent between amdgpu_bo_pin_restricted and amdgpu_bo_unpin. This
>>> patch breaks that consistency.
>>
>> You mean amdgpu_bo_pin(_restricted) and amdgpu_bo_unpin do not run for
>> such objects, or something else?
>>
>> If they run, then at the end of pin there is:
>>
>> domain = amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain(bo->tbo.resource->mem_type);
>> ...
>> } else if (domain == AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
>> atomic64_add(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->gart_pin_size);
>>
>> And unpin has no handling for AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT.
>>
>> Ah I see.. does it rely on amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain returning 0 for
>> AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT? My confusion was I misread the pinning check as
>> checking the domain as stored in the bo at creation time.
>>
>> Although I am still confused by the statement userptr BOs are not
>> pinned. It is not needed to map them via GART on AMD hardware for GPU
>> to be able to access them?
>
> No, a GART mapping is only needed if you want to scanout from them or
> otherwise use them from the kernel on the GPU.
>
> Background is that the kernel doesn't has VM with page tables..
Got it, thanks!
Presumably somewhere else in the code then it is prevented to call
pin/unpin on those?
What to do, if anything, with the attempt to address the asymmetry in
the accounting criteria between the pin and unpin?
I mean domain based on pin:
domain = amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain(bo->tbo.resource->mem_type);
if (domain == AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
atomic64_add(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->vram_pin_size);
atomic64_add(amdgpu_vram_mgr_bo_visible_size(bo),
&adev->visible_pin_size);
} else if (domain == AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
atomic64_add(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->gart_pin_size);
}
Versus placement based on unpin:
if (bo->tbo.resource->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) {
atomic64_sub(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->vram_pin_size);
atomic64_sub(amdgpu_vram_mgr_bo_visible_size(bo),
&adev->visible_pin_size);
} else if (bo->tbo.resource->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
atomic64_sub(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->gart_pin_size);
}
The fact amdgpu_mem_type_to_domain never translates back to
AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT means there is indeed currently no bug.
Is 2/3 still desirable to convert the check in pin to me mem_type based?
>>>> Fix by extending the accounting criteria in amdgpu_bo_unpin.
>>>>
>>>> What also aappears needs fixing is not reporting their size from the
>>>> amdgpu_bo_get_memory, which is used to implement fdinfo stats, so
>>>> they are
>>>> not mixed with the regular userspace created and driver owned objects.
>>>
>>> I think that's true. It's a very fine distinction. AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT
>>> does use system memory and it is GPU accessible, just like GTT. The
>>> only difference is, that it's not subject to the GTT limits because
>>> their eviction is handled by callbacks other than TTM evictions and
>>> doesn't need to wait for fences.
>>
>> As in you think those two hunks of the patch are correct?
>
> I think so as well, yes. But we still need a name for preemptible BOs
> while printing them in debugfs.
Currently it looks the name is 'CPU':
amdgpu_bo_print_info()
...
case AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU:
default:
placement = "CPU";
break;
Also, where to account them in struct amdgpu_mem_stats?
Regards,
Tvrtko
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tvrtko
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Felix
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And also amdgpu_bo_print_info for debugfs reporting.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the patch depends on the previous one which broke down the
>>>> relevant checks from the domain based to placement based.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at igalia.com>
>>>> Fixes: b453e42a6e8b ("drm/amdgpu: Add new placement for preemptible
>>>> SG BOs")
>>>> Cc: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling at amd.com>
>>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 5 ++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
>>>> index fb984669fc3a..5a2bbc793953 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
>>>> @@ -1032,7 +1032,8 @@ void amdgpu_bo_unpin(struct amdgpu_bo *bo)
>>>> atomic64_sub(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->vram_pin_size);
>>>> atomic64_sub(amdgpu_vram_mgr_bo_visible_size(bo),
>>>> &adev->visible_pin_size);
>>>> - } else if (bo->tbo.resource->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
>>>> + } else if (bo->tbo.resource->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT ||
>>>> + bo->tbo.resource->mem_type == AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT) {
>>>> atomic64_sub(amdgpu_bo_size(bo), &adev->gart_pin_size);
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -1298,7 +1299,6 @@ void amdgpu_bo_get_memory(struct amdgpu_bo *bo,
>>>> stats->vram_shared += size;
>>>> break;
>>>> case TTM_PL_TT:
>>>> - case AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT:
>>>> stats->gtt += size;
>>>> if (shared)
>>>> stats->gtt_shared += size;
>>>> @@ -1599,7 +1599,6 @@ u64 amdgpu_bo_print_info(int id, struct
>>>> amdgpu_bo *bo, struct seq_file *m)
>>>> placement = "VRAM";
>>>> break;
>>>> case TTM_PL_TT:
>>>> - case AMDGPU_PL_PREEMPT:
>>>> placement = "GTT";
>>>> break;
>>>> case TTM_PL_SYSTEM:
>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list