<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2023-09-15 6:19, Christian König
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:39f0c4d9-0959-73ed-9bca-43a342fb906a@gmail.com">Am
15.09.23 um 10:53 schrieb Lang Yu:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 09/14/ , Felix Kuehling wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 2023-09-14 10:02, Christian König
wrote:
<br>
</blockquote>
Do we still need to use legacy flush to emulate heavyweight
flush
<br>
if we don't use SVM? And can I push this now?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Felix needs to decide that. From what I understand the KFD needs
heavyweight flushes for secure SVM operation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. We need to be able to guarantee to the kernel, that the GPU
will not access unmapped memory. There are two strategies in the
driver to do this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Preempt GPU queues (which implies a heavy-weight TLB flush in
the scheduler firmware)</li>
<li>Invalidate page table entries and flush TLBs<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>#1 happens during MMU notifiers with XNACK off. #2 happens in MMU
notifiers with XNACK on (not supported on GFX10.x) and when
unified memory us munmapped. It's that last part I'm worried
about. When memory is munmapped and given back to the OS, we need
to be able to guarantee that the GPU won't access it any more. The
same is true when GTT BOs and userptr BOs are freed. After
unmapping them from the GPU page tables, we need a heavy-weight
flush. I believe the same should apply to the graphics driver, but
maybe that's implied through the CS and fence mechanisms that keep
memory allocated while the GPU is accessing it.<br>
</p>
<p>A legacy flush has a slim chance of not being sufficient because
memory accesses using old addresses can still be in flight in the
GPU.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:39f0c4d9-0959-73ed-9bca-43a342fb906a@gmail.com">
<br>
If heavyweight flushes are buggy papering over that by using
legacy flushes is only a mediocre workaround.
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree. I'd like to avoid half-baked workarounds that will cause
more headaches later on. I started an internal email thread with
Tony to understand the requirements for heavy-weight flushes on
the affected GPUs and find a better workaround.</p>
<p>Regards,<br>
Felix<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:39f0c4d9-0959-73ed-9bca-43a342fb906a@gmail.com">
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Christian.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Lang
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Am 14.09.23 um 15:59 schrieb Felix
Kuehling:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 2023-09-14 9:39, Christian König
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Is a single legacy flush
sufficient to emulate an heavyweight
<br>
flush as well?
<br>
<br>
On previous generations we needed to issue at least two
legacy
<br>
flushes for this.
<br>
</blockquote>
I assume you are referring to the Vega20 XGMI workaround.
That is a
<br>
very different issue. Because PTEs would be cached in L2,
we had to
<br>
always use a heavy-weight flush that would also flush the
L2 cache
<br>
as well, and follow that with another legacy flush to deal
with race
<br>
conditions where stale PTEs could be re-fetched from L2
before the
<br>
L2 flush was complete.
<br>
</blockquote>
No, we also have another (badly documented) workaround which
issues a
<br>
legacy flush before each heavy weight on some hw
generations. See the my
<br>
TLB flush cleanup patches.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">A heavy-weight flush guarantees that
there are no more possible
<br>
memory accesses using the old PTEs. With physically
addressed caches
<br>
on GFXv9 that includes a cache flush because the address
translation
<br>
happened before putting data into the cache. I think the
address
<br>
translation and cache architecture works differently on
GFXv10. So
<br>
maybe the cache-flush is not required here.
<br>
<br>
But even then a legacy flush probably allows for in-flight
memory
<br>
accesses with old physical addresses to complete after the
TLB
<br>
flush. So there is a small risk of memory corruption that
was
<br>
assumed to not be accessed by the GPU any more. Or when
using IOMMU
<br>
device isolation it would result in IOMMU faults if the
DMA mappings
<br>
are invalidated slightly too early.
<br>
</blockquote>
Mhm, that's quite bad. Any idea how to avoid that?
<br>
</blockquote>
A few ideas
<br>
<br>
* Add an arbitrary delay and hope that it is longer than the
FIFOs in
<br>
the HW
<br>
* Execute an atomic operation to memory on some GPU engine
that could
<br>
act as a fence, maybe just a RELEASE_MEM on the CP to some
writeback
<br>
location would do the job
<br>
* If needed, RELEASE_MEM could also perform a cache flush
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Felix
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Regards,
<br>
Christian.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Regards,
<br>
Felix
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">And please don't push before
getting an rb from Felix as well.
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Christian.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 14.09.23 um 11:23 schrieb Lang Yu:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">cyan_skilfish has problems with
other flush types.
<br>
<br>
v2: fix incorrect ternary conditional operator
usage.(Yifan)
<br>
<br>
Signed-off-by: Lang Yu <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Lang.Yu@amd.com"><Lang.Yu@amd.com></a>
<br>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stable@vger.kernel.org"><stable@vger.kernel.org></a> # v5.15+
<br>
---
<br>
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c | 7 ++++++-
<br>
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
<br>
<br>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
<br>
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
<br>
index d3da13f4c80e..c6d11047169a 100644
<br>
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
<br>
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
<br>
@@ -236,7 +236,8 @@ static void
<br>
gmc_v10_0_flush_vm_hub(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
uint32_t
<br>
vmid,
<br>
{
<br>
bool use_semaphore =
<br>
gmc_v10_0_use_invalidate_semaphore(adev, vmhub);
<br>
struct amdgpu_vmhub *hub =
&adev->vmhub[vmhub];
<br>
- u32 inv_req =
<br>
hub->vmhub_funcs->get_invalidate_req(vmid,
flush_type);
<br>
+ u32 inv_req =
hub->vmhub_funcs->get_invalidate_req(vmid,
<br>
+ (adev->asic_type !=
CHIP_CYAN_SKILLFISH) ?
<br>
flush_type : 0);
<br>
u32 tmp;
<br>
/* Use register 17 for GART */
<br>
const unsigned int eng = 17;
<br>
@@ -331,6 +332,8 @@ static void
<br>
gmc_v10_0_flush_gpu_tlb(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
uint32_t
<br>
vmid,
<br>
int r;
<br>
+ flush_type = (adev->asic_type !=
CHIP_CYAN_SKILLFISH)
<br>
? flush_type : 0;
<br>
+
<br>
/* flush hdp cache */
<br>
adev->hdp.funcs->flush_hdp(adev, NULL);
<br>
@@ -426,6 +429,8 @@ static int
<br>
gmc_v10_0_flush_gpu_tlb_pasid(struct amdgpu_device
*adev,
<br>
struct amdgpu_ring *ring =
&adev->gfx.kiq[0].ring;
<br>
struct amdgpu_kiq *kiq =
&adev->gfx.kiq[0];
<br>
+ flush_type = (adev->asic_type !=
CHIP_CYAN_SKILLFISH)
<br>
? flush_type : 0;
<br>
+
<br>
if (amdgpu_emu_mode == 0 &&
ring->sched.ready) {
<br>
spin_lock(&adev->gfx.kiq[0].ring_lock);
<br>
/* 2 dwords flush + 8 dwords fence */
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>