[PATCH v5 4/4] drm/amdgpu: track bo memory stats at runtime

[Christian König]

Am 23.10.24 um 09:38 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
>
> On 22/10/2024 17:24, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 22.10.24 um 17:17 schrieb Li, Yunxiang (Teddy):
>>> [Public]
>>>
>>>>> +static uint32_t fold_memtype(uint32_t memtype) {
>>>> In general please add prefixes to even static functions, e.g. 
>>>> amdgpu_vm_ or
>>>> amdgpu_bo_.
>>>>
>>>>> +   /* Squash private placements into 'cpu' to keep the legacy 
>>>>> userspace view.
>>>> */
>>>>> +   switch (mem_type) {
>>>>> +   case TTM_PL_VRAM:
>>>>> +   case TTM_PL_TT:
>>>>> +           return memtype
>>>>> +   default:
>>>>> +           return TTM_PL_SYSTEM;
>>>>> +   }
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static uint32_t bo_get_memtype(struct amdgpu_bo *bo) {
>>>> That whole function belongs into amdgpu_bo.c
>>> Do you mean bo_get_memtype or fold_memtype? I debated whether 
>>> bo_get_memtype should go into amdgpu_vm.c or amdgpu_bo.c, and since 
>>> it's using fold_memtype and only useful for memory stats because of 
>>> folding the private placements I just left them here together with 
>>> the other mem stats code.
>>>
>>> I can move it to amdgpu_bo.c make it return the memtype verbatim and 
>>> just fold it when I do the accounting.
>>
>> I think that folding GDS, GWS and OA into system is also a bug. We 
>> should really not doing that.
>>
>> Just wanted to point out for this round that the code to query the 
>> current placement from a BO should probably go into amdgpu_bo.c and 
>> not amdgpu_vm.c
>>
>>>
>>>>> +   struct ttm_resource *res = bo->tbo.resource;
>>>>> +   const uint32_t domain_to_pl[] = {
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)]      = TTM_PL_SYSTEM,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)]      = TTM_PL_TT,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)]     = TTM_PL_VRAM,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GDS)]      = AMDGPU_PL_GDS,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_GWS)]      = AMDGPU_PL_GWS,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_OA)]       = AMDGPU_PL_OA,
>>>>> +           [ilog2(AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_DOORBELL)] =
>>>> AMDGPU_PL_DOORBELL,
>>>>> +   };
>>>>> +   uint32_t domain;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +   if (res)
>>>>> +           return fold_memtype(res->mem_type);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +   /*
>>>>> +    * If no backing store use one of the preferred domain for basic
>>>>> +    * stats. We take the MSB since that should give a reasonable
>>>>> +    * view.
>>>>> +    */
>>>>> +   BUILD_BUG_ON(TTM_PL_VRAM < TTM_PL_TT || TTM_PL_VRAM <
>>>> TTM_PL_SYSTEM);
>>>>> +   domain = fls(bo->preferred_domains & AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_MASK);
>>>>> +   if (drm_WARN_ON_ONCE(&adev->ddev,
>>>>> +                        domain == 0 || --domain >= 
>>>>> ARRAY_SIZE(domain_to_pl)))
>>>> It's perfectly legal to create a BO without a placement. That one 
>>>> just won't have a
>>>> backing store.
>>>>
>>> This is lifted from the previous change I'm rebasing onto. I think 
>>> what it’s trying to do is if the BO doesn't have a placement, use 
>>> the "biggest" (VRAM > TT > SYSTEM) preferred placement for the 
>>> purpose of accounting. Previously we just ignore BOs that doesn't 
>>> have a placement. I guess there's argument for going with either 
>>> approaches.
>>
>> I was not arguing, I'm simply pointing out a bug. It's perfectly 
>> valid for bo->preferred_domains to be 0.
>>
>> So the following WARN_ON() that no bit is set is incorrect.
>>
>>>
>>>>> +           return 0;
>>>>> +   return fold_memtype(domain_to_pl[domain])
>>>> That would need specular execution mitigation if I'm not completely 
>>>> mistaken.
>>>>
>>>> Better use a switch/case statement.
>>>>
>>> Do you mean change the array indexing to a switch statement?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Did you mean array_index_nospec?

Yes.

> Domain is not a direct userspace input and is calculated from the mask 
> which sanitized to allowed values prior to this call. So I *think* 
> switch is an overkill but don't mind it either. Just commenting FWIW.

I missed that the mask is applied.

Thinking more about it I'm not sure if we should do this conversion in 
the first place. IIRC Tvrtko you once suggested a patch which switched a 
bunch of code to use the TTM placement instead of the UAPI flags.

Going more into this direction I think when we want to look at the 
current placement we should probably also use the TTM PL enumeration 
directly.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko